PDA

View Full Version : So all you Einsteins whose 1st rd pick would you rather have now?


baja
10-06-2009, 08:20 PM
Would you believe a poll is coming?

DBroncos4life
10-06-2009, 08:22 PM
both of them I don't even need you to set up a poll.

baja
10-06-2009, 08:25 PM
both of them I don't even need you to set up a poll.

Well I want a twenty year old and a hard-on on command but neither one of us is going to get our wish so vote.

atomicbloke
10-06-2009, 08:26 PM
I think its too early to start gloating...

baja
10-06-2009, 08:29 PM
I think its too early to start gloating...

whose gloating?

Just calling you on your ignorance induced outrage.

Popps
10-06-2009, 08:30 PM
I think its too early to start gloating...

Maybe, but apparently without seeing a SINGLE game played... it wasn't too early for a lot of people to deem this franchise a failure.

Oops.

HAT
10-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Chicago's.

Alphie was a steal.

And it's not even about who finishes with the better record. McD (Sorry, Baja, Josh....) will not get any credit for it of course. But it was a stroke of McGenius to not even make the pick conditional.

Chances are that there will be no more than 5 draft slots separating the two picks anyway.......Even if Chicago ends up going farther in the playoffs, (which I doubt)... I'd still take their #26 over our #22 all day every day given what it meant to this team from a circling the wagons point of view.

baja
10-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Chicago's.

Alphie was a steal.

And it's not even about who finishes with the better record. McD (Sorry, Baja, Josh....) will not get any credit for it of course. But it was a stroke of McGenius to not even make the pick conditional.

Chances are that there will be no more than 5 draft slots separating the two picks anyway.......Even if Chicago ends up going farther in the playoffs, (which I doubt)... I'd still take their #26 over our #22 all day every day given what it meant to this team from a circling the wagons point of view.

Yes it would be a lousy message to send to your team if you made an issue about getting your own 1st reasoning it would be higher than the team's that you traded your star QB too. Not a good way to start the season. Josh has been way ahead of all of the haters and I'm LMAO.

cutthemdown
10-06-2009, 08:38 PM
People who thought we would be giving Seattle a top 10 pick were probably wrong. Also before he went down Alphonso was contributing. We will need him big time against Patriots so hopefully he will be better. What's the word on his injury?

As we get into the teams like Pats, Colts that use a lot of 3-4 wr sets we will need all the Cbs healthy.

tsiguy96
10-06-2009, 08:42 PM
all offseason, how many times were these two terms posted:

potential top 10 pick
potential top 5 pick

how many times i had to tell people "it could also be a bottom 10 pick too" but no one cared.

HAT
10-06-2009, 08:42 PM
Josh has been way ahead of all of the haters and I'm LMAO.

I don't know bro...There's an awful lot of people here qualified to run NFL teams because they read stuff on the internetz.

Oh, and don't forget about BF7....He's an "above average" fan that delves into the intricacies and all.

misturanderson
10-06-2009, 08:45 PM
all offseason, how many times were these two terms posted:

potential top 10 pick
potential top 5 pick

how many times i had to tell people "it could also be a bottom 10 pick too" but no one cared.

Except they never added "potential" to their predictions.

baja
10-06-2009, 08:47 PM
I don't know bro...There's an awful lot of people here qualified to run NFL teams because they read stuff on the internetz.

Oh, and don't forget about BF7....He's an "above average" fan that delves into the intricacies and all.

LOL I wouldn't be surprised if Josh had BF7 on speed dial.

cutthemdown
10-06-2009, 08:53 PM
BF7 a joke but Rasta just as bad. He actually thinks regardless of winning, we should be starting Simms. Orton has a top 10 qb ratig and is 4-0 and he argues we should try Simms.

It's so stupid it's hard to even fathom his thinking.

tsiguy96
10-06-2009, 08:56 PM
broncofan7:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2522575&postcount=13

some more good stuff:
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=83154&highlight=midget

atomicbloke (already ate his crow but shoulda been smart enough to watch a game before all this nonsense)
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2506994&postcount=21

crash crashed on thsi prediction
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2482577&postcount=28

jhat01
10-06-2009, 09:00 PM
BF7 a joke but Rasta just as bad. He actually thinks regardless of winning, we should be starting Simms. Orton has a top 10 qb ratig and is 4-0 and he argues we should try Simms.

It's so stupid it's hard to even fathom his thinking.

I've argued with butt****7 for two days now, and I've realized it's no use. He's too far gone, he has to keep at it and hope Orton falls apart. Hell, he would have benched Elway in 97 because of his completion percentage.

TheDave
10-06-2009, 09:01 PM
I would still rather have ours... chicago's schedule is just freakishly easy compared to ours.

baja
10-06-2009, 09:01 PM
LOL that's some funny stuff right there.

edit post #15

watermock
10-06-2009, 09:03 PM
both of them I don't even need you to set up a Troll.


Ha!

tsiguy96
10-06-2009, 09:30 PM
theres so many other posts with "TOP 10 PICK OMG MIDGET CORNER SUX" its crazy. how stupid those people have to feel.

strafen
10-06-2009, 09:41 PM
theres so many other posts with "TOP 10 PICK OMG MIDGET CORNER SUX" its crazy. how stupid those people have to feel.

My favorite one was...
"McDaniels has set this franchise back 10 years!"
No with this defense, he didn't...

HAT
10-06-2009, 09:45 PM
I would still rather have ours... chicago's schedule is just freakishly easy compared to ours.

I get it Dave...I really do.

BUT:

I still think the motivational factor trumps all and that it was absolutely premeditated.

atomicbloke
10-06-2009, 10:05 PM
I get it Dave...I really do.

BUT:

I still think the motivational factor trumps all and that it was absolutely premeditated.

You are right.

When I made my comment, I didn't consider the motivational factor. McD trading his own pick probably was an indirect vote of confidence in the team and challenged them to get it done. Guess in the long run, that will be more important and a little lower draft pick. Draft picks are crapshoots anyway.

Popps
10-06-2009, 10:05 PM
I would still rather have ours... chicago's schedule is just freakishly easy compared to ours.

But, again... if you're going to ask the question, you have to ask the WHOLE question...

Is the DIFFERENCE between our pick and the Chicago pick worth giving up to have A. Smith THIS year, in our system... learning and contributing.

By the end of this year (as I said in the pre-season) ... we'll probably be looking at 10-15 slots that we gave up, if that. Now it looks like potentially even less.

So, the proper question to ask at the time of the trade was... is giving up some first round draft slots NEXT year worth it to have a CB we need, and had targeted THIS year.

This trade never had the monumental risk attached that people attempted to attribute to it, and as it plays out... it appears that it was a very sound, logical trade.

Kaylore
10-06-2009, 10:59 PM
I think its too early to start gloating...

Hmmm, that's weird. Four games in is a bit early, but that didn't stop you from declaring doom and gloom in March. What changed? Did you find a new found respect for patience?

baja
10-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Hmmm, that's weird. Four games in is a bit early, but that didn't stop you from declaring doom and gloom in March. What changed? Did you find a new found respect for patience?

It may be a bit early to declare which team will have the better record but it is not early to scoff at the idea that the move was brutally amateurish as was widely proclaimed around here as you know.

Doggcow
10-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Whoops, I picked the wrong one by accident. I've always been on the side of the team...

cutthemdown
10-06-2009, 11:15 PM
But, again... if you're going to ask the question, you have to ask the WHOLE question...

Is the DIFFERENCE between our pick and the Chicago pick worth giving up to have A. Smith THIS year, in our system... learning and contributing.

By the end of this year (as I said in the pre-season) ... we'll probably be looking at 10-15 slots that we gave up, if that. Now it looks like potentially even less.

So, the proper question to ask at the time of the trade was... is giving up some first round draft slots NEXT year worth it to have a CB we need, and had targeted THIS year.

This trade never had the monumental risk attached that people attempted to attribute to it, and as it plays out... it appears that it was a very sound, logical trade.

Some of us tried to explain that a 1st round pick a yr away is really only worth a high 2nd round pick right now. Coaches look at it like you end up with a player who is a yr ahead of anyone you could draft the next yr.

Smith will be one of the players showing new rookies next yr how to get it done, how the defense works. Instead of having 2 first round picks we end up with 1 first rounder and a CB who is a yr closer to being a starter then anyone you could take in that draft.

Hopefully Bailey will be sticking around but you never know. I think he will.

cutthemdown
10-06-2009, 11:17 PM
Also it will be a hoot if Broncos end up doing better then Bears. Bears have a cakewalk schedule so it won't be easy. We play about 5 more tough games then they do.

Rock Chalk
10-06-2009, 11:20 PM
I think the worst possible difference we can expect based on the eye test of both teams is maybe 5 slots +/- each other. Chicago MAY end up with the better pick. Who knows. Their schedule is easier, but unless they correct their defense and they can get consistency from their running game, they will drop a few they should win.

baja
10-06-2009, 11:25 PM
I think the worst possible difference we can expect based on the eye test of both teams is maybe 5 slots +/- each other. Chicago MAY end up with the better pick. Who knows. Their schedule is easier, but unless they correct their defense and they can get consistency from their running game, they will drop a few they should win.

It's not just about who will receive the highest pick, there is the issue of sending a message to your players that the FO expects them to lose more games than the team they traded with if you demand to keep your own pick and trade the other. Real bad message to send to your players. IMO.

BroncoMan4ever
10-07-2009, 12:03 AM
all offseason, how many times were these two terms posted:

potential top 10 pick
potential top 5 pick

how many times i had to tell people "it could also be a bottom 10 pick too" but no one cared.

i was fighting the same thing, and repeatedly saw not only top 10 or top 5 pick, but also that we were giving away quite possibly the top pick in the draft.

BroncoMan4ever
10-07-2009, 12:04 AM
I think the worst possible difference we can expect based on the eye test of both teams is maybe 5 slots +/- each other. Chicago MAY end up with the better pick. Who knows. Their schedule is easier, but unless they correct their defense and they can get consistency from their running game, they will drop a few they should win.

plus Cutler is a game or 2 away from having a brain fart game that screws the team in the process. we Broncos fans are well aware of the good and bad Jay that pops up.

~Crash~
10-07-2009, 12:11 AM
both of them I don't even need you to set up a poll.

Ditto Jack Willams did a great job last week wasted pick !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~Crash~
10-07-2009, 12:13 AM
plus Cutler is a game or 2 away from having a brain fart game that screws the team in the process. we Broncos fans are well aware of the good and bad Jay that pops up.

yep he is a pro that I have never hear of an acting coach complain about and you are ?

Popps
10-07-2009, 12:31 AM
Some of us tried to explain that a 1st round pick a yr away is really only worth a high 2nd round pick right now. Coaches look at it like you end up with a player who is a yr ahead of anyone you could draft the next yr.

Yep.

Many of us went to great lengths to explain what should have been a pretty simple situation. You give up a little later to get something you need and want now. This team needed help NOW. Giving up a few draft slots next year for a guy we had rated high was a no-brainer.

If people don't get it at this point, there's just no use trying to educate them. Plus, some just don't want to get it. It doesn't fit the agenda.

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 01:10 AM
Yep.

Many of us went to great lengths to explain what should have been a pretty simple situation. You give up a little later to get something you need and want now. This team needed help NOW. Giving up a few draft slots next year for a guy we had rated high was a no-brainer.

If people don't get it at this point, there's just no use trying to educate them. Plus, some just don't want to get it. It doesn't fit the agenda.

Smiths value already went up. He's an investment that someday could be worth far more then the first round pick denver gave up.

People seem to get get caught up on the first rounders being stars, and the 4th rounders being role player avg starters. It really doesn't matter who the stars become, as long you get them.

But what is important is that draft picks end up playing well for you regardless of where they were picked. Smith when he becomes a solid starter for the Broncos becomes a good pick. Same with Ayers. Even if they never become Champ Bailey and Doom.

What you are looking for is good solid football players who will play in the NFL. It looks like Broncos had another solid draft were up to 3 of the players will end up being starters.

You do that every yr and you will build a really strong team.

hambone13
10-07-2009, 01:42 AM
all offseason, how many times were these two terms posted:

potential top 10 pick
potential top 5 pick

how many times i had to tell people "it could also be a bottom 10 pick too" but no one cared.

You just don't get it......

BroncoInSkinland
10-07-2009, 03:28 AM
Another good chance to eat crow for me here. I was always in favor of trading a pick for Smith (after a very small amount of research on him), he is an excellent player at what I think will be a "need" position within the next 3 years. I did however want it to be a conditional pick, whichever of ours or the Bears was later goes to Seattle. I thought Josh got duped in the trade into giving away what Seattle thought was the lower pick. I was wrong. Josh was sending a message to this team from the beggining. That show of confidence was worth far more than the possible 15 or so slots we could have lost. Even if we don't have a later pick than Chicago, the way Josh went about this was absolutely correct from every standpoint, and particularly considering he was building the team mentality on exactly this point. If he had made this a conditional pick, or worse yet allowed Seattle to take Chicagos pick instead of ours, it would have undermined his message from the beggining and made him look like a gigantic hypocrit. I was wrong here (but not about Smith, I got that part right).

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 04:01 AM
Hopefully smith gets back on the field really soon. We will need all the corners we have going into this run of tough games. Neither Pats or Chargers run the ball too much. They will be throwing 40 times a game.

I predict they have no choice but to challenge Champ. Broncos defense is too good for them to let Champ just get a free ride 1-1. It free's too many players to zone the middle of the field or rush the QB.

Broncomutt
10-07-2009, 04:18 AM
Maybe, but apparently without seeing a SINGLE game played... it wasn't too early for a lot of people to deem this franchise a failure.

Oops.

:spit:

Oh those poor, victimized and so very rational souls.

chanesaw
10-07-2009, 04:42 AM
I would still rather have both.

TotallyScrewed
10-07-2009, 05:19 AM
Well I want a twenty year old and a hard-on on command but neither one of us is going to get our wish so vote.

That's what she said... J/K

I think it's a long season and only time will tell. When the trade happened, I wanted Denver's #1 but at present I can't say.

Denver is looking good but the tough part starts now.

Chicago has done well too but their in one of the tougher divisions.

Let's just say that it's not as clear to me as it once was which is goodness.

errand
10-07-2009, 05:26 AM
I recall saying what did it matter if we got the guy we wanted, and one of these clowns said "you will when Seattle is drafting at #5"

Just goes to show you how much McDaniels really does know, huh?

cmhargrove
10-07-2009, 05:58 AM
I don't think we can even ask this question yet. Just because of the physical nature of our defense and the age of our two corners, we might not be done assessing Smith's value yet.

If he has to fill in as a starting CB for a game or two, we can really figure out who we have - and his real value.

It was brought up earlier that McD was sending a message to the team a long, long time ago. He flat out said, "take our pick" - which showed some confidence (and possibly justified arrogance) to the team. So far, it's all going according to his plan.

You know, you get a spooky feeling about some coaches that they know things before other coaches do. Instead of reacting, they are master planners. It may all come crashing down later, but I keep getting the feeling that McD plans his season like Napoleon Bonaparte (they're both short - right?).

UboBronco
10-07-2009, 06:26 AM
A look at the schedules..

Same games, same sites..
@ Cincy, @ Baltimore, Cleveland and Pittsburgh at home.

Same team different sites.

Denver @ Philly, Philly @ Bears..

Through this point, quite even schedule, no big difference..

Division games, one home, one away...

Bears, Detroit, Packers, Vikings..
Denver, KC, Oakland, San Diego

Big advantage to us here, I think Detroit is better than KC, and probably Oakland.. Packers are pretty good, close to San Diego, and Minny is better than San Diego, in my opinion.

Different games..

Bears: @ Seattle, @ Atlanta, @ San Fran, Arizona, St. Louis

Broncos: @ Washington, @ Indy, Dallas, New England, Giants

Advantage Bears....

Looking at this, I feel the Bears will win one more game (on paper) than Denver, so not a big deal about the difference of draft spots next year, picks will be between 18 and 25, is my early guess....

jhns
10-07-2009, 06:38 AM
I would rather have both picks. We had TWO firsts this year and thet didn't think Smith was worth one. They then act like he is going to be better than the prospects in the first next year, which is expected to be a better draft? I still don't get it. I have always said if we pick late it doesn't really matter though. I think it is risky to trade your future first when you redo the entire team. Obviously a lot here don't agree.

Traveler
10-07-2009, 06:44 AM
Come on folks. It's way to early for this. Let's see where we are in November.

DBroncos4life
10-07-2009, 06:46 AM
So I guess we wouldn't be 4-0 without Smith then? What would you guys rate his impact then a 9 or a 10 from a scale of 1 to 10?

Orange_Beard
10-07-2009, 06:46 AM
Both. Package them for a QB.

Broncoman13
10-07-2009, 06:57 AM
Would you believe a poll is coming?

It is a fair question and I get why you're asking, but I'll stand on my original assessment. We have a much more difficult schedule than the Bears and our team, like it or not, is in a "modification" mode. At this point, I think we end up with very similar records. I also think that the vote of confidence McD sent to his team was great... but the smart move was to make the pick contingent on where we finish. I.e. if our pick is a top 10 then they have to take the latter pick and vice versa with the Bears pick. As I recall, Josh didn't have time to negotiate that. I will say, I'm not as upset as I was originally, but that has a lot more to do with Alphonso Smith's play than our current record. From what I've seen in Smith, we can give up a #15 and I'm fine.

Popcorn Sutton
10-07-2009, 07:07 AM
Very premature given the upcoming schedule...

baja
10-07-2009, 07:15 AM
It is a fair question and I get why you're asking, but I'll stand on my original assessment. We have a much more difficult schedule than the Bears and our team, like it or not, is in a "modification" mode. At this point, I think we end up with very similar records. I also think that the vote of confidence McD sent to his team was great... but the smart move was to make the pick contingent on where we finish. I.e. if our pick is a top 10 then they have to take the latter pick and vice versa with the Bears pick. As I recall, Josh didn't have time to negotiate that. I will say, I'm not as upset as I was originally, but that has a lot more to do with Alphonso Smith's play than our current record. From what I've seen in Smith, we can give up a #15 and I'm fine.

This decision involves more that just the projected differential between the two picks.

What I have thought all along is Josh McD believed in his ability to bring a winning attitude and team to Denver from the start so how could he justify insisting Seattle take the Bears pick with the implication being our pick was more valuable because we were going to stink it up and be awarded a higher pick. Bad message to send to you players and fans.

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 07:16 AM
This decision involves more that just the projected differential between the two picks.

What I have thought all along is Josh McD believed in his ability to bring a winning attitude and team to Denver from the start so how could he justify insisting Seattle take the Bears pick with the implication being our pick was more valuable because we were going to stink it up and be awarded a higher pick. Bad message to send to you players and fans.

but dude, we traded a potential top 5 pick, and maybe the 1st overall pick....

Steve Prefontaine
10-07-2009, 07:18 AM
Does this poll affect which pick we will actually have next year?

That would be the nuts.

TheDave
10-07-2009, 07:28 AM
I get it Dave...I really do.

BUT:

I still think the motivational factor trumps all and that it was absolutely premeditated.

I can't disagree with that... but he still should have pushed for it to be conditional.

We had just traded away an extremely valuable commodity. IMO, we should have focused more on protecting our assets and not trying to make statements with them.

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 07:30 AM
I can't disagree with that... but he still should have pushed for it to be conditional.

We had just traded away an extremely valuable commodity. IMO, we should have focused more on protecting our assets and not trying to make statements with them.

i think, given the situation a lot of us would have preferred to KEEP the pick, but its done and over and we did get a good player, so its not entirely wasted or anything. when you use a #1 on a solid player (even though injured) you never lose...given how many of them turn out to be busts

kamakazi_kal
10-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Nothing is written we have played 4 games this year and really .... at this point it looks like Denver and Chicago could make the playoffs.

Denver v. Chicago in the SB ......... fun to watch bad for picks.

TheDave
10-07-2009, 07:42 AM
i think, given the situation a lot of us would have preferred to KEEP the pick, but its done and over and we did get a good player, so its not entirely wasted or anything. when you use a #1 on a solid player (even though injured) you never lose...given how many of them turn out to be busts

Like I said a million times, had we gone 6-10 (making our pick in the 5-7 range) I would have come uncorked. As of now that doesn't seem to be a possibility.

Here's the thing, as much as all the "positive" folk feel vindicated with our 4-0 start the vast majority of this place all agreed we were going to be a sub .500 team. Under those circumstances you should protect your pick. It was a high risk move and as long as we go 8-8 or better it was probably worth it.

As for Smith... I have no idea how good he is or isn't. At this point he is our nickleback at best. With Champ and Goodman ahead of him that's not likely to change.

At this point which would you rather have 2 #1's in a QB rich draft or a nickleback?

Rock Chalk
10-07-2009, 07:55 AM
kal brings up a good point. WTF would it matter of both teams end up in the superbowl?

UberBroncoMan
10-07-2009, 07:57 AM
Sorry... Bears have the EASIEST schedule in the entire NFL. We have the HARDEST.

Lev Vyvanse
10-07-2009, 08:00 AM
At this point whick would you rather have 2 #1's in a QB rich draft or a nickleback?

We already have our QB prospect.

Punisher
10-07-2009, 08:00 AM
Neither Ive rather have KC 1st round pick

TheDave
10-07-2009, 08:02 AM
We already have our QB prospect.

I guess I'm not as high on "Brandy" as some...

WolfpackGuy
10-07-2009, 08:06 AM
I'd much rather have both picks going into 2010.
Those two thirds for Quinn was a head scratcher though.
Like he wouldn't have been there at 79?

ColoradoDarin
10-07-2009, 08:11 AM
I'd much rather have both picks going into 2010.
Those two thirds for Quinn was a head scratcher though.
Like he wouldn't have been there at 79?

You forgot the 4th we got back too (it was our 2 3rds for a 2nd and 4th), and no he might not have been there at 79.

baja
10-07-2009, 08:57 AM
but dude, we traded a potential top 5 pick, and maybe the 1st overall pick....

It wasn't illogical for fans to see it that way, after all we had just lost what many believed was a young Elway (Even if they didn't speak it they imagined it) add that to a very popular coach being fired and head scratching draft day decisions and it is no wonder hard core loyal fans flipped out and became irrational.
Thank our lucky stars it appears to be working out. Bottom line we have a good team and what is looking like maybe the best young coach in the league. Once again it looks like Mr. Bowlen knows what he is doing.

baja
10-07-2009, 09:00 AM
Does this poll affect which pick we will actually have next year?

That would be the nuts.

Yes, yes it does.

So be sure an vote.

skpac1001
10-07-2009, 09:06 AM
For those who would rather have both picks, how would you address the oldest secondary in the league, both from a planning for the future aspect, and from a injury at any time aspect? Is there a cb who should be available in this draft who you would take with a 1st who you think will be that much better then a sophomore Smith? Or do you not really worry about it till its a problem, or throw some later picks at it?

jhns
10-07-2009, 09:19 AM
For those who would rather have both picks, how would you address the oldest secondary in the league, both from a planning for the future aspect, and from a injury at any time aspect? Is there a cb who should be available in this draft who you would take with a 1st who you think will be that much better then a sophomore Smith? Or do you not really worry about it till its a problem, or throw some later picks at it?

I will just say that trading our first next year for smith was not even close to our only option for this. Shoot, there is a pretty good chance that Smith would have been there for our next pick anyways. It is pretty obvious that no other team gave him as high of a grade as this one. There were many other good corners in this draft though and I will guarantee there are many good ones next year.

Then there is FA. Our FA CB from this year is playing great (Goodman in case that was hard to figure out).

Who knows though, maybe Smith turns into a great player and the trade will be justified. I still feel it was a very risky move that didn't need to be made.

baja
10-07-2009, 09:28 AM
I will just say that trading our first next year for smith was not even close to our only option for this. Shoot, there is a pretty good chance that Smith would have been there for our next pick anyways.<b> It is pretty obvious that no other team gave him as high of a grade as this one. </b>There were many other good corners in this draft though and I will guarantee there are many good ones next year.

Then there is FA. Our FA CB from this year is playing great (Goodman in case that was hard to figure out).

Who knows though, maybe Smith turns into a great player and the trade will be justified. I still feel it was a very risky move that didn't need to be made.

How is that obvious?

jhns
10-07-2009, 09:31 AM
How is that obvious?

According to McDaniels we gave him a first round grade, and gave up a first for him. No other team took him in the first and some even skipped him in the second. I think that makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't a first round pick to anyone else.

baja
10-07-2009, 09:40 AM
I'm glad we got him;

SMITH AT A GLANCE:

A two-time first-team All-Atlantic Coast Conference cornerback whose 21 career interceptions in four seasons at Wake Forest University ranked as the 10th most in NCAA history (all levels) and represented a conference record.
Led the nation with 15 interceptions during his final two years at Wake Forest, recording seven interceptions as a senior in 2008 that tied for the most in the country after sharing the national lead with a school-record eight interceptions as a junior in 2007.
Received numerous All-America honors and was one of five finalists for the Bronko Nagurski Award (nation’s best defensive player) as a senior in 2008 following a junior campaign in which he also was recognized as an All-American for Wake Forest.
Finished his collegiate career with a Wake Forest-record 61 pass breakups and four interceptions returned for a touchdown.
Excelled on special teams at Wake Forest, blocking five punts during his collegiate career while also returning punts and kickoffs.
Played both defensive back and quarterback at Pahokee High School in Pahokee, Fla., where he was runner-up for the state’s Player of the Year honor as a senior.
Selected by the Broncos in the second round (37th overall) of the 2009 NFL Draft.
Quickly: Smith was selected by the Broncos in the second round (37th overall) of the 2009 NFL Draft from Wake Forest University where his 21 career interceptions ranked as the 10th most in NCAA history and represented an Atlantic Coast Conference record.

2009: Played in his first regular-season NFL game at Cin. (9/13).

2008: Smith started all 13 games as a senior for Wake Forest, totaling 37 tackles (28 solo), seven interceptions (33 yds.), 20 pass breakups and two forced fumbles... Tied for first in the nation in both interceptions (7) and pass breakups (20)... Named a first-team All-Atlantic Coast Conference selection and picked up All-America honors from Walter Camp (second team), The NFL Draft Report (first team) and Pro Football Weekly (first team)... Named one of five finalists for the Bronko Nagurski Award (nation’s best defensive player)... Led Wake Forest with 21 punt returns for 108 yards (5.1 avg.) and had five kickoff returns for 110 yards (22.0 avg.)... Helped Wake Forest rank 12th in the nation in pass defense (172.5 ypg.)... Posted the fourth multiple-interception game of his career with two interceptions along with the fifth blocked punt of his career against Duke (11/1).

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 09:42 AM
According to McDaniels we gave him a first round grade, and gave up a first for him. No other team took him in the first and some even skipped him in the second. I think that makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't a first round pick to anyone else.

it doesnt matter what other teams thought of him, it matters what we thought of him, and we had him rated as the drafts best corner and a first round grade, and we got him a year in advance. this team needs football players who are smart and physical, not players the media anoints as great. he fits the bill perfectly.

c_lazy_r
10-07-2009, 12:00 PM
it doesnt matter what other teams thought of him, it matters what we thought of him, and we had him rated as the drafts best corner and a first round grade, and we got him a year in advance. this team needs football players who are smart and physical, not players the media anoints as great. he fits the bill perfectly.

Bingo.

rastaman
10-07-2009, 12:19 PM
BF7 a joke but Rasta just as bad. He actually thinks regardless of winning, we should be starting Simms. Orton has a top 10 qb ratig and is 4-0 and he argues we should try Simms.

It's so stupid it's hard to even fathom his thinking.

Oh get over yourself you JACK-AZZ! The DEFENSE is carrying Orton...plain and simple and yet you gloat over Orton as if he's the second coming of your self-induced mesiah! Orton has just been plain lucky. In the DAL game he should have had 2-3 interceptions alone! So you had best believe over the course of the next 12 games is just a matter of time before the chindella slippers will come off of Orton's season. Just b/c you're a Homer for Orton doesn't make your predictions and opinions fool proof.

rastaman
10-07-2009, 12:22 PM
Nothing is written we have played 4 games this year and really .... at this point it looks like Denver and Chicago could make the playoffs.

Denver v. Chicago in the SB ......... fun to watch bad for picks.

Boy if that prediction were to come true.....that would be utterly amazing!

jhns
10-07-2009, 01:07 PM
it doesnt matter what other teams thought of him, it matters what we thought of him, and we had him rated as the drafts best corner and a first round grade, and we got him a year in advance. this team needs football players who are smart and physical, not players the media anoints as great. he fits the bill perfectly.

1) What does the media have to do with anything I have said.

2) You dispute my post, which says McDaniels gave him a first round grade by saying that mcdaniels gave him a first round grade? What?

3) How can we get him a year in advance? That doesn't make sense. He wasn't going to wait for us to decide on him next year if we didn't take him now. A year in advance would be getting him last year. Again, what?

4) Really, why are you still responding to me? You made a big deal about putting me on ignore and even gave me neg rep to make your point. What happened with that?


By the way, read the conversation. That argument was in response to a question. It was saying there was a good possibility to get him without trading picks because no one rated him as high as us. I don't get what your argument has to do with this. Of course it matters what other teams thought of him. If they like him, he will be picked sooner. Of they don't like him as much as you, he will be there at your pick.

The argument against that would be that teams might have liked him or that mcd didn't want to risk it. Saying that it doesn't matter what other teams think doesn't make sense.

broncofan7
10-07-2009, 01:21 PM
IF our defense continues to allow only a TD per game--we are liable to go 14-2 or 15-1--with the losses of course being blamed on that backup QB that we currently start.

-18 of 49 on third down (the $$$ down)
-19 points per game--down 3 from last year
-62 yards less per game passing than last yr even though we solidified our 4th and 5th receiver slots and brought in a coach who developed the NE spread/pass happy offense

Unless he improves on the MONEY DOWN--our record setting defense will be for not--and our record will be WORSE than it should have been--how many of you homers predicted that we would field a SEVEN POINT PER GAME DEFENSE?

Drek
10-07-2009, 04:38 PM
Sorry... Bears have the EASIEST schedule in the entire NFL. We have the HARDEST.

Where do people keep getting this from? Last years records I'm guessing.

Denver's remaining 12 games:
NE@DEN
DEN@SD
DEN@BAL
PIT@DEN
DEN@WAS
SD@DEN
DEN@KC
DEN@IND
OAK@DEN
DEN@PHI
KC@DEN

It sucks that we're going on the road to BAL, IND, and PHI but the rest of the schedule isn't that bad. The Pats look human this season and we have them at home. We could legitimately win this week. SD hasn't looked very good, I'd expect a split with them, maybe even a sweep. KC and Oakland should be sweeps. Pittsburgh looks mediocre and is coming to Denver, very winnable game there. Going to Washington is looking like a "should win" game now as well.

Final tally we're talking four tough road games (BAL, IND, PHI, SD), three tough home games (NE, PIT, SD), and five should win games.

Now look at Chicago's:
CHI@ATL
CHI@CIN
CLE@CHI
ARI@CHI
CHI@SF
PHI@CHI
CHI@MIN
STL@CHI
GB@CHI
CHI@BAL
MIN@CHI
CHI@DET

Chicago @ ATL, CIN, SF, MIN, and BAL are brutal games. The easiest looks to be Cincy, but they're a surprisingly good team that is likely to get better as the young talent on their D comes together. AZ, Philly, and Minnesota could all also pose big problems for Chicago, as could GB who already beat them once.

Final tally of five tough road games (ATL, CIN, SF, MIN, BAL), four tough home games (AZ, PHI, MIN, GB), and three should wins (CLE, STL, @DET).

We're 4-0, they're 3-1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they go 8-8, while I think we're in reasonable position to expect 9-7 or better. And that is assuming they don't suffer a Jay Cutler trademark late season swoon.

I don't see how they're considered so likely to even make the playoffs. Minnesota looks to have that division on lockdown, and the NFC East is almost definitely sending two teams to the playoffs (Giants and Philly). Atlanta doesn't look like a team that will be sitting home in January either. That leaves the Cards and Packers sitting at home as well. Its early but the NFC doesn't look like a conference where a 8-8 or maybe even 9-7 record gets you a wild card spot.

Tombstone RJ
10-07-2009, 04:40 PM
Would you believe a poll is coming?

I said that to my g-friend once... twas a pleasant evening...

baja
10-07-2009, 04:42 PM
Where do people keep getting this from? Last years records I'm guessing.

Denver's remaining 12 games:
NE@DEN
DEN@SD
DEN@BAL
PIT@DEN
DEN@WAS
SD@DEN
DEN@KC
DEN@IND
OAK@DEN
DEN@PHI
KC@DEN

It sucks that we're going on the road to BAL, IND, and PHI but the rest of the schedule isn't that bad. The Pats look human this season and we have them at home. We could legitimately win this week. SD hasn't looked very good, I'd expect a split with them, maybe even a sweep. KC and Oakland should be sweeps. Pittsburgh looks mediocre and is coming to Denver, very winnable game there. Going to Washington is looking like a "should win" game now as well.

Final tally we're talking four tough road games (BAL, IND, PHI, SD), three tough home games (NE, PIT, SD), and five should win games.

Now look at Chicago's:
CHI@ATL
CHI@CIN
CLE@CHI
ARI@CHI
CHI@SF
PHI@CHI
CHI@MIN
STL@CHI
GB@CHI
CHI@BAL
MIN@CHI
CHI@DET

Chicago @ ATL, CIN, SF, MIN, and BAL are brutal games. The easiest looks to be Cincy, but they're a surprisingly good team that is likely to get better as the young talent on their D comes together. AZ, Philly, and Minnesota could all also pose big problems for Chicago, as could GB who already beat them once.

Final tally of five tough road games (ATL, CIN, SF, MIN, BAL), four tough home games (AZ, PHI, MIN, GB), and three should wins (CLE, STL, @DET).

We're 4-0, they're 3-1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they go 8-8, while I think we're in reasonable position to expect 9-7 or better. And that is assuming they don't suffer a Jay Cutler trademark late season swoon.

I don't see how they're considered so likely to even make the playoffs. Minnesota looks to have that division on lockdown, and the NFC East is almost definitely sending two teams to the playoffs (Giants and Philly). Atlanta doesn't look like a team that will be sitting home in January either. That leaves the Cards and Packers sitting at home as well. Its early but the NFC doesn't look like a conference where a 8-8 or maybe even 9-7 record gets you a wild card spot.

So did you cancel the game with the Giants???

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 04:44 PM
1) What does the media have to do with anything I have said.

2) You dispute my post, which says McDaniels gave him a first round grade by saying that mcdaniels gave him a first round grade? What?

3) How can we get him a year in advance? That doesn't make sense. He wasn't going to wait for us to decide on him next year if we didn't take him now. A year in advance would be getting him last year. Again, what?

4) Really, why are you still responding to me? You made a big deal about putting me on ignore and even gave me neg rep to make your point. What happened with that?

By the way, read the conversation. That argument was in response to a question. It was saying there was a good possibility to get him without trading picks because no one rated him as high as us. I don't get what your argument has to do with this. Of course it matters what other teams thought of him. If they like him, he will be picked sooner. Of they don't like him as much as you, he will be there at your pick.

The argument against that would be that teams might have liked him or that mcd didn't want to risk it. Saying that it doesn't matter what other teams think doesn't make sense.

my argument is clearly there, you arent smart enough to understand it. mcdaniels had a 1st round grade on the guy, he wanted him, and got him for a first round pick. waiting to see if you can get him later is how you do NOT get the players you want. just because the media tells you its a reach to get him doesnt mean that they think it is, they feel he is a player that can come in and help now and even more in the future as starting corner, so they went and got him. make sense? who cares what other teams had him rated as, we had him rated very high obviously and had a chance to get him so they did.

and its just so easy to destroy you in any argument, i just couldnt go through with the ignore.

baja
10-07-2009, 04:50 PM
I said that to my g-friend once... twas a pleasant evening...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msy7TtyAVIc

Drek
10-07-2009, 06:51 PM
So did you cancel the game with the Giants???

Yep, its going to be automatically conceded as a win, in exchange for Hixon helping them win a Super Bowl.

Actually, I just forgot. Forgot the Cleveland game for Chicago as well, but caught it before hitting post. Missed our Giants game. ;P

Either way, I'd say our schedules are close to even with the difference more leaning in favor of the Broncos, as we have most of our tough games at home and we do still have 3/4ths of our Oakland/KC games left to play.

jhns
10-07-2009, 07:53 PM
my argument is clearly there, you arent smart enough to understand it. mcdaniels had a 1st round grade on the guy, he wanted him, and got him for a first round pick. waiting to see if you can get him later is how you do NOT get the players you want. just because the media tells you its a reach to get him doesnt mean that they think it is, they feel he is a player that can come in and help now and even more in the future as starting corner, so they went and got him. make sense? who cares what other teams had him rated as, we had him rated very high obviously and had a chance to get him so they did.

and its just so easy to destroy you in any argument, i just couldnt go through with the ignore.

You don't make sense. Again, what does the media have to do with what I said? How does it not matter what other teams rate him as? If they don't like him, we get him later. Of course it matters. You are only agreeing with me when you say he was rated as a first round pick. They obviously didn't like him that much. We had two of them and he wasn't picked with either. How can you honestly tell yourself that he is going to be better than the prospects at our first round pick next year?

You are only arguing what I have said. With that, I think it is a pretty big risk that wasn't really needed. It really doesn't make sense at all when you consider everything. We sacrificed the future for the now when he isn't even needed now.....

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 07:57 PM
You don't make sense. Again, what does the media have to do with what I said? How does it not matter what other teams rate him as? If they don't like him, we get him later. Of course it matters. You are only agreeing with me when you say he was rated as a first round pick. They obviously didn't like him that much. We had two of them and he wasn't picked with either. How can you honestly tell yourself that he is going to be better than the prospects at our first round pick next year?

You are only arguing what I have said. With that, I think it is a pretty big risk that wasn't really needed. It really doesn't make sense at all when you consider everything. We sacrificed the future for the now when he isn't even needed now.....

because THEY had a first round grade on him and saw a chance to get him NOW. if they waited he was probably gone, theres no reason to think a top flight player whos cover skills were #1 in the draft would fall that far down the second. only thing i agree with is that we didnt need to make the trade as JMFW is pretty damn good, but i totally understand why they did it.

broncocalijohn
10-07-2009, 08:06 PM
BF7 a joke but Rasta just as bad. He actually thinks regardless of winning, we should be starting Simms. Orton has a top 10 qb ratig and is 4-0 and he argues we should try Simms.

It's so stupid it's hard to even fathom his thinking.

he is a communist. He thinks Simms should start 4 games, then bring in Brandstater for 4 games, then cut Orton since he already had his share of the pie and sign an average Joe like BVP to get the last 4 games. Everything is equal and fair.

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 08:10 PM
my argument is clearly there, you arent smart enough to understand it. mcdaniels had a 1st round grade on the guy, he wanted him, and got him for a first round pick. waiting to see if you can get him later is how you do NOT get the players you want. just because the media tells you its a reach to get him doesnt mean that they think it is, they feel he is a player that can come in and help now and even more in the future as starting corner, so they went and got him. make sense? who cares what other teams had him rated as, we had him rated very high obviously and had a chance to get him so they did.

and its just so easy to destroy you in any argument, i just couldnt go through with the ignore.

Without the scouting reports that rank the players, most of us laymen fans would not even be able to come up with a draft board that comes even close to the GM's of pro football teams.

Basically people know who the college stars are, you know the 10 or so players everyone knows will be first round picks etc. But really we know only what we read about.

Teams like the Broncos realize they have to do there own homework and find the players that will work best for Broncos.

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 08:12 PM
he is a communist. He thinks Simms should start 4 games, then bring in Brandstater for 4 games, then cut Orton since he already had his share of the pie and sign an average Joe like BVP to get the last 4 games. Everything is equal and fair.

The lunacy of sitting someone who is 4-0 and whose qb rating gets better as the game goes on, and whose QB rating is top 10, is about the stupidest suggestion ever made on the Orangemane.

Are you going to the SD game this yr? I was thinking about getting some tickets and maybe hooking up with some fellow Bronco fans.

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 08:14 PM
One stat that hit me was that Orton gets better as the game goes on. His 4th quarter stats better then his first quarter stats.

That make me believe he could uncork his arm for more yrds, but he doesn't do it until he feels its needed to win the game. This is a smart QB we have. When that glove comes off I see him avg about 240 yrds a game.

tsiguy96
10-07-2009, 08:17 PM
Without the scouting reports that rank the players, most of us laymen fans would not even be able to come up with a draft board that comes even close to the GM's of pro football teams.

Basically people know who the college stars are, you know the 10 or so players everyone knows will be first round picks etc. But really we know only what we read about.

Teams like the Broncos realize they have to do there own homework and find the players that will work best for Broncos.

thats kinda what i was getting at. except not all teams draft boards are the same, some will not take a guy who does not fit their system at all while i sure some teams overlooked smith's ball skills and wiped him off their board due to size. theres a 1000 variables that we dont really hear about that make a team and a player a good match, and the scouting dept has to find those players.

DBroncos4life
10-07-2009, 08:21 PM
One stat that hit me was that Orton gets better as the game goes on. His 4th quarter stats better then his first quarter stats.

That make me believe he could uncork his arm for more yrds, but he doesn't do it until he feels its needed to win the game. This is a smart QB we have. When that glove comes off I see him avg about 240 yrds a game.

As great as that is his struggles over the first three quarters are concerning. Games won't be as close come the fourth quarter if he can improve during the first three. I still think things improve when the glove comes off.

broncocalijohn
10-07-2009, 08:35 PM
The lunacy of sitting someone who is 4-0 and whose qb rating gets better as the game goes on, and whose QB rating is top 10, is about the stupidest suggestion ever made on the Orangemane.

Are you going to the SD game this yr? I was thinking about getting some tickets and maybe hooking up with some fellow Bronco fans.

:rofl: I just PMd broncofan116 (he also lives in Long Beach) about how many are now planning that trip. Yes, he and I are going. Field level corner near my old seats of Plaza 54. Maybe price goes even farther down as Chargers stink a little and they are scared we will win at their home. That game is going to be insane. Tailgatting around 1PM to 1:30PM.

Popps
10-07-2009, 10:50 PM
Oh get over yourself you JACK-AZZ! The DEFENSE is carrying Orton...plain and simple and yet you gloat over Orton as if he's the second coming of your self-induced mesiah! Orton has just been plain lucky. In the DAL game he should have had 2-3 interceptions alone! So you had best believe over the course of the next 12 games is just a matter of time before the chindella slippers will come off of Orton's season. Just b/c you're a Homer for Orton doesn't make your predictions and opinions fool proof.

Poor guy. More anger.

Therapy?

Maybe we'll lose. Keep rooting against our starting QB. Hang in there.

hambone13
10-07-2009, 11:11 PM
One stat that hit me was that Orton gets better as the game goes on. His 4th quarter stats better then his first quarter stats.

That make me believe he could uncork his arm for more yrds, but he doesn't do it until he feels its needed to win the game. This is a smart QB we have. When that glove comes off I see him avg about 240 yrds a game.

Uncorked? :rofl: he's already uncorked...His aroma is a well known and understood: "mediocre". When you're telling coach, "My Bad", so many times he has to tell you to "just get it done"...I wanted a cocky gunslinger. I don't care how much people like him

hambone13
10-07-2009, 11:13 PM
thats kinda what i was getting at. except not all teams draft boards are the same, some will not take a guy who does not fit their system at all while i sure some teams overlooked smith's ball skills and wiped him off their board due to size. theres a 1000 variables that we dont really hear about that make a team and a player a good match, and the scouting dept has to find those players.

That's a really fancy way of saying, "I can't be sure about ****."

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 11:15 PM
Uncorked? :rofl: he's already uncorked...His aroma is a well known and understood: "mediocre". When you're telling coach, "My Bad", so many times he has to tell you to "just get it done"...I wanted a cocky gunslinger. I don't care how much people like him

I just want to win. But yeah Cutler would have been something on this team. But who knows how much impact Ayers and Smith will make. Someday you might be glad you have them.

cutthemdown
10-07-2009, 11:20 PM
Oh get over yourself you JACK-AZZ! The DEFENSE is carrying Orton...plain and simple and yet you gloat over Orton as if he's the second coming of your self-induced mesiah! Orton has just been plain lucky. In the DAL game he should have had 2-3 interceptions alone! So you had best believe over the course of the next 12 games is just a matter of time before the chindella slippers will come off of Orton's season. Just b/c you're a Homer for Orton doesn't make your predictions and opinions fool proof.

wow so your new prediction is sometime between now and the next 12 games Orton will cost us a game. Since QB so hard to play its safe to say that is true. I'm sure you are looking forward to it.

I'm not a homer I just know a good team when I see it. Last yr if you remember I was very critical to start the yr. I also questioned whether Cutler would ever be able to play smart.

If you knew about Cutlers play you would know he also had a few passes in his last game that were dropped interceptions.

That's just how NFL goes. Sometimes you have to throw the ball to players that are somewhat covered and hope you score. Orton doesn't take those chances until he has to.

I agree he's not lighting it up but I also think the finger has held him back. I think you will see him improve, the offense improve. Broncos have caught some good bounces but in every good yr you have lucky things occur.

Go ahead though keep waiting for Orton to get picked so you can say i told you so.

azbroncfan
10-07-2009, 11:53 PM
Ask me after 4 more games.

baja
10-08-2009, 12:02 AM
Today 61.64% of voting posters believe Chicago's 1st pick will better serve the Broncos than if they had kept there own that was traded away.

Popps
10-08-2009, 12:12 AM
Today 61.64% of voting posters believe Chicago's 1st pick will better serve the Broncos than if they had kept there own that was traded away.

I voted for Chicago's pick, but under the circumstances that we got Smith in the process.

Again, a bunch of us tried to make this really simple to understand in the pre-season. This was never the dramatic "risk" people made it out to be. We traded a few slots to get a guy we needed and had targeted NOW, instead of a question mark next year.

This was never a big deal, it's not a big deal now... and as I said in the pre-season, if Smith pans out at all, it's a nice move. If not, it's just a bad draft pick. This hand-wringing over this whole scenario was silly from the start, and a product of a lot of disgruntled people looking for trouble.

Elway777
10-08-2009, 12:19 AM
It looks like McDanials is a gambler. It looks like MCdaniels rolled the dice and might have got lucky .

tsiguy96
10-08-2009, 03:41 AM
That's a really fancy way of saying, "I can't be sure about ****."

yea, and neither can you, thats teh point dumbass. you dont know anything about scouting or creating draft profiles, and if you say you do youre a ****ing liar.

jhns
10-08-2009, 06:05 AM
because THEY had a first round grade on him and saw a chance to get him NOW. if they waited he was probably gone, theres no reason to think a top flight player whos cover skills were #1 in the draft would fall that far down the second. only thing i agree with is that we didnt need to make the trade as JMFW is pretty damn good, but i totally understand why they did it.

I am to lazy but I think it would be fun to go through your past posts to see what you say about other teams picks. The specific one I have in mind is heyward-bay. Your argument is saying that it was a good pick because that is where that team rated him.

Why wouldn't he fall down the second? Prove it.... Prove that we needed him so bad that we needed to give up the future for the now. What did he contribute the past few weeks that made us the top defense?

TheDave
10-08-2009, 07:07 AM
I voted for Chicago's pick, but under the circumstances that we got Smith in the process.

Again, a bunch of us tried to make this really simple to understand in the pre-season. This was never the dramatic "risk" people made it out to be. We traded a few slots to get a guy we needed and had targeted NOW, instead of a question mark next year.

This was never a big deal, it's not a big deal now... and as I said in the pre-season, if Smith pans out at all, it's a nice move. If not, it's just a bad draft pick. This hand-wringing over this whole scenario was silly from the start, and a product of a lot of disgruntled people looking for trouble.

Yawn...

This trade is not a big deal now because barring a historic collapse we are looking at 8-8 or 9-7 at the worst. That makes your trading a few slots theory work.

6-10 or lower would make the trade a disaster

Once again...

6-10 = top 5 - 7 pick = BAD

9-7 = 22nd or higher pick = Worthwhile risk

Even then I understand why some people would rather have a couple of #1's in a QB rich draft instead of a nickle back

tsiguy96
10-08-2009, 07:21 AM
I am to lazy but I think it would be fun to go through your past posts to see what you say about other teams picks. The specific one I have in mind is heyward-bay. Your argument is saying that it was a good pick because that is where that team rated him.

Why wouldn't he fall down the second? Prove it.... Prove that we needed him so bad that we needed to give up the future for the now. What did he contribute the past few weeks that made us the top defense?

you are a ****ing idiot. i just said i dont think we needed to make the pick you dumbass, but i see why they did and it makes sense, we have an old secondary and they had him rated high enough that they felt it was worth a first round pick. understand?

jhns
10-08-2009, 07:26 AM
you are a ****ing idiot. i just said i dont think we needed to make the pick you dumbass, but i see why they did and it makes sense, we have an old secondary and they had him rated high enough that they felt it was worth a first round pick. understand?

Woah, settle down there big guy. If you are agreeing with what I said, why are you disputing my posts? It isn't like I am calling for mcds head for this. Why are you getting so defensive?

CEH
10-08-2009, 07:39 AM
I voted for Chicago's pick, but under the circumstances that we got Smith in the process.

Again, a bunch of us tried to make this really simple to understand in the pre-season. This was never the dramatic "risk" people made it out to be. We traded a few slots to get a guy we needed and had targeted NOW, instead of a question mark next year.

This was never a big deal, it's not a big deal now... and as I said in the pre-season, if Smith pans out at all, it's a nice move. If not, it's just a bad draft pick. This hand-wringing over this whole scenario was silly from the start, and a product of a lot of disgruntled people looking for trouble.

Who was the last 2nd round player traded for a 1st and had success? In recent memory I can't think of one. McCargo, Losman, E Brown this year. I would say based on recent history it was a "risk". Obviously if we knew in April we have a defense on par with Balt or NYG then alot of opinons on alot of issues would be totally different. Going from #30 to #2 noone predicted it . I based on my predictions off a slight upgrade in the D to maybe #20 but coupled that with a downgrade at QB. 8-8 looked like the ceiling if we got turnovers. #12 draft slot has been gold for us the last couple year and I feared we would end up there again this year .

tsiguy96
10-08-2009, 07:41 AM
Woah, settle down there big guy. If you are agreeing with what I said, why are you disputing my posts? It isn't like I am calling for mcds head for this. Why are you getting so defensive?

because you seem to think theres no chance this trade can be successful and it was absolutely retarded. smith was THE best cover corner coming out of the draft just didnt have the measurables, much like winfield. if he learns under goodman and bailey and takes over in 2 years as the starter for a long time it was a perfectly good trade, not to mention the financial hell that 4 1st rounders could put us under in 2 years. JMFW is playing fine as nickel, even very good, but smiths upside seems to be much higher.

jhns
10-08-2009, 07:50 AM
because you seem to think theres no chance this trade can be successful and it was absolutely retarded. smith was THE best cover corner coming out of the draft just didnt have the measurables, much like winfield. if he learns under goodman and bailey and takes over in 2 years as the starter for a long time it was a perfectly good trade, not to mention the financial hell that 4 1st rounders could put us under in 2 years. JMFW is playing fine as nickel, even very good, but smiths upside seems to be much higher.

Again, read the conversation. I clearly stated that this trade is good if Smith is good. I then stated why I wouldn't do it and the reasons why it is a big risk that I don't think is a good one.

Those first rounders would not hurt us. We spend far more on FAs every year. If we draft well, that money can start going to retaining our players rather than getting all the FAs every year.

jhns
10-08-2009, 07:59 AM
Who knows though, maybe Smith turns into a great player and the trade will be justified. I still feel it was a very risky move that didn't need to be made.

Here you go tsi. Is that saying there is no way this can work out for us?

baja
10-08-2009, 08:43 AM
I remember the days around here when most thought McD would come in and draft for D but keep the O intact (coaches included) and make a run. Who knew he had is own ideas and had no intention of being a caretaker coach for Shanahan's team. We hear alot about Kool Aid drinking around here but I think many of us here were drinking Kool Aid that Shanahan was serving, year after year we believed we were a player or two away. Aren't we glad now Josh is his own man with his own ideas on how to build a team. I remember the shiit storm when Josh started to clean house in Dove Valley. When you look back on it is it any wonder the fan base went a little nuts? What is funny the posters that were accused of drinking Kool Aid were the people that had stopped drinking it and their accusers were still drinking the Shanny version of the drink.

BroncoBuff
10-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Without seeing a SINGLE game played... it wasn't too early for a lot of people to deem this franchise a failure.

Oops.

Do you realize at least half your posts bring up this topic?

BroncoBuff
10-08-2009, 09:12 AM
Today 61.64% of voting posters believe Chicago's 1st pick will better serve the Broncos than if they had kept there own that was traded away.

The poll results are of course irrelevant ... we'll know by Christmas which will be the better pick.

Neither will be Top 10, that seems pretty clear.

tsiguy96
10-08-2009, 09:20 AM
The poll results are of course irrelevant ... we'll know by Christmas which will be the better pick.

Neither will be Top 10, that seems pretty clear.

wouldnt have thought that just 1 month ago. the world was about to end and mcdaniels was gonna build a worldwide hitler shrine out of baby bones.

baja
10-08-2009, 09:47 AM
wouldnt have thought that just 1 month ago. the world was about to end and mcdaniels was gonna build a worldwide hitler shrine out of baby bones.

I always liked the one that Josh was sent here by Belichick as a Trojan Horse.

HAT
10-08-2009, 09:54 AM
I always liked the one that Josh was sent here by Belichick as a Trojan Horse.

That's still the case....Beli is going to dump the game on Sunday and then McD must do the same when the two teams meet again in the PO's. They arranged it the week after Josh was hired.

TonyR
10-08-2009, 11:24 AM
-19 points per game--down 3 from last year
-62 yards less per game passing than last yr even though we solidified our 4th and 5th receiver slots and brought in a coach who developed the NE spread/pass happy offense


The problem with this myopic type of analysis, other than that we're only currently working with a 4 game sample size, is that it's difficult to fairly compare last year's offense with this year's because of the defense. What I mean by this is that both you and your opponent play differently depending on the circumstances. For example, last year we gave up a lot of points and trailed a lot more than this year. Therefore we threw the ball more and the opponents in many cases probably backed off on defense with large and/or late leads. This year, with leads and/or in close games, we're very likely to play it more conservative offensively.

So while I fully agree that our passing game isn't as explosive as last year, I don't know that the 3 fewer points per game or the 62 fewer passing yards per game mean much of anything at this juncture.

baja
10-08-2009, 03:44 PM
60% of the voters now prefer the Bears pick over the Broncos pick that is quite a turn around, no?

BroncoBuff
10-08-2009, 07:13 PM
wouldnt have thought that just 1 month ago. the world was about to end and mcdaniels was gonna build a worldwide hitler shrine out of baby bones.

What a strange, offensive post.

azbroncfan
10-08-2009, 07:55 PM
Maybe, but apparently without seeing a SINGLE game played... it wasn't too early for a lot of people to deem this franchise a failure.

Oops.

A lot of the anti MCD's have quit posting I noticed.

tsiguy96
10-08-2009, 07:56 PM
What a strange, offensive post.

strange, true. but that was the feeling around here from many people before they started winning.

BroncoBuff
10-08-2009, 09:34 PM
strange, true. but that was the feeling around here from many people before they started winning.

Whatever

BroncoBuff
10-08-2009, 09:35 PM
A lot of the anti MCD's have quit posting I noticed.
No no, it's the other was around, decidedly so.

DBroncos4life
10-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Two first round picks could equal Suh but what the **** right. Its not like Suh isn't the best player in a long time