PDA

View Full Version : Broncos, Patriots draft off a short board


Br0nc0Buster
04-11-2010, 11:43 AM
Broncos, Patriots draft off a short board

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on April 11, 2010 10:31 AM ET
"The best way to avoid drafting players you don't really want is to take them off your draft board.

That's the theory, anyhow, used by Bill Belichick in New England and some of his proteges around the NFL. Jeff Legwold of the Denver Post has an interesting piece Sunday about how Josh McDaniels uses a "short board" when drafting, like his old boss.

Most teams list all potential draft picks on their board. That can top 300 players. The Broncos had under 100 players last year, the only ones that fit what Denver wants to do.

"We want the players on our board that we want on our team -- that's the goal," McDaniels said. "It's the process we go through to make the best decisions, both short- and long-term for our team."

Belichick has reportedly had as few as 25 players on his board one year, which is remarkable.

The approach makes sense, but McDaniels still must show he can pick the right players for such a short draft board."



just saw this on PFT, take it for what its worth.
for for those who were complaining about Josh only have X amount of names on his board, it looks like he may not be the only one

BowlenBall
04-11-2010, 11:49 AM
Short board? Is that like the short bus?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y8SPNbAAKo8/SFdT156rGOI/AAAAAAAACSw/uG4_YEM-nDY/s400/totg-short-bus2.jpg

Wes Mantooth
04-11-2010, 12:01 PM
Short board? Is that like the short bus?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y8SPNbAAKo8/SFdT156rGOI/AAAAAAAACSw/uG4_YEM-nDY/s400/totg-short-bus2.jpg

If it is I hope it is like this

Requiem
04-11-2010, 12:02 PM
And if you notice other fans from other teams are citing how their coaches too also have the same approach. It isn't that they only scout "100 players" -- it is that they draw their list down that amount when they figure who they think is suitable to play for the team. Makes a ton of sense, regardless of what people here like to stay to bash Josh.

bowtown
04-11-2010, 12:04 PM
My only problem with this method is that it's hard to put proper value on guys in relation to where they most likely fall on other people's boards if you don't have them on your board at all. Just seems like it can lead to making some real reaches.

eddie mac
04-11-2010, 12:30 PM
My only problem with this method is that it's hard to put proper value on guys in relation to where they most likely fall on other people's boards if you don't have them on your board at all. Just seems like it can lead to making some real reaches.

Reach in who's eyes though??? Some dick like Kiper???

I dont give a **** where we draft a guy as long as he pans out and contributes.

Popps
04-11-2010, 12:33 PM
Look, as ****ty as we've been at drafting in the last decade, maybe a new approach is something we should embrace.

baja
04-11-2010, 12:49 PM
kffl is reporting that the Washington Redskins have as few as 100 players on their draft board now is this because they don't have that many picks or because Shanny is once again following Josh's example.

Durango
04-11-2010, 01:20 PM
It's fine, I guess, IF you have the right short list of players. How many years do pro bowl players emerge from the later rounds. It just seems to me that you have to cast a wide net to catch the fish. Why bother having a large scouting staff? Target your draft needs and employ a few friends & family to go watch the best at those positions. Works for the coaching positions apparently.

Limiting your choices by design just seems dumb

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Broncos, Patriots draft off a short board

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on April 11, 2010 10:31 AM ET
"The best way to avoid drafting players you don't really want is to take them off your draft board.

That's the theory, anyhow, used by Bill Belichick in New England and some of his proteges around the NFL. Jeff Legwold of the Denver Post has an interesting piece Sunday about how Josh McDaniels uses a "short board" when drafting, like his old boss.

Most teams list all potential draft picks on their board. That can top 300 players. The Broncos had under 100 players last year, the only ones that fit what Denver wants to do.

"We want the players on our board that we want on our team -- that's the goal," McDaniels said. "It's the process we go through to make the best decisions, both short- and long-term for our team."

Belichick has reportedly had as few as 25 players on his board one year, which is remarkable.

The approach makes sense, but McDaniels still must show he can pick the right players for such a short draft board."



just saw this on PFT, take it for what its worth.
for for those who were complaining about Josh only have X amount of names on his board, it looks like he may not be the only one

Is there really any other way to draft? If you got 300 guys on your draft board you are the type of organization that has no direction. It basically means you don't know who you want.

Narrowing down you draft board just makes sense.

baja
04-11-2010, 01:28 PM
Remember when Mike Ditka had only had one name on his draft list.

Durango
04-11-2010, 01:31 PM
Remember when Mike Ditka had only had one name on his draft list.

Didn't Buddy Ryan do the same thing, trading away all the later rounds so he could move up for somebody, can't remember who.

DenverBrit
04-11-2010, 01:32 PM
Is there really any other way to draft? If you got 300 guys on your draft board you are the type of organization that has no direction. It basically means you don't know who you want.

Narrowing down you draft board just makes sense.

Exactly.

When we go to the liquor store, do we have everything on our shopping lists?

Ok, wrong analogy. ;D

baja
04-11-2010, 01:35 PM
Didn't Buddy Ryan do the same thing, trading away all the later rounds so he could move up for somebody, can't remember who.

I only remember Ditka doing it for Ricky Williams

elsid13
04-11-2010, 01:45 PM
It fine to have very short draft board, when you are coming off a Superbowl and have great depth on your team. When that happens you can very very selective on who you want to add to the team. But it stupid to have a short board when you are coming off an 8-8 season, don't have a lot of depth, and older roster.

watermock
04-11-2010, 01:47 PM
Billichick has over twice the # of high picks this year.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 01:48 PM
I don't consider 100 players to be very short. There is no problem with this method. They scout more than 100 players. They narrow it to that amount. What is the big ****ing deal toots?

WolfpackGuy
04-11-2010, 01:48 PM
Based on last year's draft "haul", I would like to see a bigger board in Denver.

I could care less what they do in New England.

sixtimeseight
04-11-2010, 01:56 PM
It fine to have very short draft board, when you are coming off a Superbowl and have great depth on your team. When that happens you can very very selective on who you want to add to the team. But it stupid to have a short board when you are coming off an 8-8 season, don't have a lot of depth, and older roster.

damn bro, you sure know a lot about running a successful pro football team, which organization do you work for again?

Dagmar
04-11-2010, 02:04 PM
Billichick has over twice the # of high picks this year.

The 06 draft class have all died from aids.

Just saving you the trouble you wank.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 02:06 PM
Dagmar, nice. Post some GIF's.

Dagmar
04-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Dagmar, nice. Post some GIF's.

I'm hungover. The internet is the best place to take out my rage... Plus my golf bet just went down the tubes.

Oh, and I will post some gifs, don't think I wont!

TDmvp
04-11-2010, 02:12 PM
I only remember Ditka doing it for Ricky Williams

Addition note . The year that happened , The Saint offered the Bengals that deal of all their picks that year + a 1st and a 3rd the next year and the Bengals TURNED IT DOWN cause they had to have Akili Smith and was convinced Akili was their man LOLOLOLOLOLOL


Following Week Wash took the deal.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 02:12 PM
http://www.aids-3d.com/174510__leo10_l.jpg

elsid13
04-11-2010, 02:13 PM
damn bro, you sure know a lot about running a successful pro football team, which organization do you work for again?

Go ahead be snide, it easier to be that way when you don't want to get in a adult like discussion. Gathering and identifying resources isn't different in modern business world, wither in making widgets or running a football team. When you are second tier company in any market you attempting to get right folks in place to make your company the market leader.

The current Denver team is not like the NE Patriots teams of the last decade, we don't have the talent or depth they had. So we can not copy what they did, because conditions are different. IF Denver reach that status like the PATS did, then we can very selecting in our scouting and spending of resources. Until that time, Denver needs to not loose any flexibility on getting right folks in there.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 02:19 PM
So we cannot have a shorter board because we haven't won Super Bowls recently?

Stupid argument. Too Simpleton.

http://www.aids-3d.com/5091c.jpg

There is no reason for Denver to keep players on board that do not fit their scheme.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 02:27 PM
The simplest way to look at it is that the Broncos have to have a group of players that they'd be willing to take at each draft spot. At number 11 they probably have 15 guys who they'd absolutely take at that spot. Some of those guys won't be there, some will. They have to decide which player to pull the trigger on when 11 hits. The same can be said for the rest of their picks. If they trade down, nothing changes. They're still gonna have a group of players that they think are worth taking at that particular spot.

You don't aim for one particular player at one particular spot because the chance that that player will be gone increases with each pick. Hence, you have a group of players that you'd be willing to pull the trigger on at that spot.

I really, really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand.

tsiguy96
04-11-2010, 02:31 PM
funny how all these "analysts" seem to forget that KC is literally trying to copy NE, with their GM and 2 former coordinators as well as former QB. mcdaniels is making his mark on this team with a different, more attacking defense.

ColoradoDarin
04-11-2010, 02:35 PM
The simplest way to look at it is that the Broncos have to have a group of players that they'd be willing to take at each draft spot. At number 11 they probably have 15 guys who they'd absolutely take at that spot. Some of those guys won't be there, some will. They have to decide which player to pull the trigger on when 11 hits. The same can be said for the rest of their picks. If they trade down, nothing changes. They're still gonna have a group of players that they think are worth taking at that particular spot.

You don't aim for one particular player at one particular spot because the chance that that player will be gone increases with each pick. Hence, you have a group of players that you'd be willing to pull the trigger on at that spot.

I really, really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand.

15 for draft spot 11? I'd be surprised if it was more than 3. At the most it should be 11.... You'd have to figure that ONE of them would fall to you at 11 ROFL!

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 02:38 PM
A great draft board is going to be structured yet maintain flexibility. You have to be willing to adjust your picks at each particular spot but work within the parameters of the overall board. Your not going to draft a guy who your just going to cut, therefore you don't reach on any player. If he's not on your board, you don't take him, period.

All the hard work is done in setting your board. The rest is just adjusting you pick to pull in one of the players on your board. In the first round, you want an impact player. In fact, I'd say in the first 3 rounds you want impact players. Rounds 4 & 5 you want role players, solid depth guys. Rounds 6-7 you want developmental guys. Somewhere in there you might take a kicker or a punter if you have to have one.

Then, you have all the guys who didnt get drafted. If any player on your board is available as an undrafted FA, you try to scoop him up.

It ain't rocket science. IMHO, it's pretty straight forward.

chaz
04-11-2010, 02:54 PM
A short list would be exactly how I'd run a draft. There's no point taking a player who is "rated" higher, but isn't the person/player you're looking for.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 02:59 PM
15 for draft spot 11? I'd be surprised if it was more than 3. At the most it should be 11.... You'd have to figure that ONE of them would fall to you at 11 ROFL!

I'm just saying that if Sam Bradford falls to #11, you take him. Chances of that are slim to none, but still, you have to account for all possibilites.

Here's how I see it:

Round 1, here's the guys the Broncos have listed in the first half of the first round whom they would absolutely love to have at 11:

1. Bradford
2. McCoy
3. Suh
4. Okung
5. Williams
6. Berry
7. Clausen
8. Bryant
9. Spiller
10. Odrick
11. Bulaga
12. Williams
13. Haden
14. Thomas
15. Wilson
16. Tate.

Those are the prospects I value at #11. Now, all those guys won't be there so I have to have some flexibility.

Do ya get it now?

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 03:00 PM
Are your neurons firing now? This ain't hard.

tsiguy96
04-11-2010, 03:17 PM
A short list would be exactly how I'd run a draft. There's no point taking a player who is "rated" higher, but isn't the person/player you're looking for.

pretty much this. the hard work goes into evaluating and narrowing down who you want and think can contribute. to have too many guys can create uncertainty and confusion on draft day.

ColoradoDarin
04-11-2010, 04:03 PM
I'm just saying that if Sam Bradford falls to #11, you take him. Chances of that are slim to none, but still, you have to account for all possibilites.

Here's how I see it:

Round 1, here's the guys the Broncos have listed in the first half of the first round whom they would absolutely love to have at 11:

1. Bradford
2. McCoy
3. Suh
4. Okung
5. Williams
6. Berry
7. Clausen
8. Bryant
9. Spiller
10. Odrick
11. Bulaga
12. Williams
13. Haden
14. Thomas
15. Wilson
16. Tate.

Those are the prospects I value at #11. Now, all those guys won't be there so I have to have some flexibility.

Do ya get it now?

The Broncos would be stupid to PLAN on Bradford dropping to 11 - it's a waste of resources.

Even then, you can take him even if he's not "on your board".


Do you get it now??

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 04:10 PM
The Broncos would be stupid to PLAN on Bradford dropping to 11 - it's a waste of resources.

Even then, you can take him even if he's not "on your board".


Do you get it now??

eh, ok. Never said they planned on Bradford being there. That's why there's more than 11 picks. It's for flexibility. However, they do have to account for all the players on their board, no?

The Broncos have what, 6 picks? If they had 10 possible players at each of those picks, that's still only 60 players. However, many here are saying that 60 is too limited. That is, you gotta have way more, right? How do you track the players you value? You have to put them on your board.

What happens if that player is available a few years later? Can you say Brady Quinn? You can always go back and look at who you valued and why.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 04:27 PM
Over the years a team should have refined their draft process by looking at their old boards, comparing it to how their valued players actually did, and then try to correlate your scouting with what works best to filter out problems. Eventually, you should be able to know pretty darn well which players or type of player you want for your system. It makes creating your draft board easier and easier over time. That being said, your scouts are the key. It's a great way to analyze your scout's abilities too.

Kaylore
04-11-2010, 04:59 PM
I don't consider 100 players to be very short. There is no problem with this method. They scout more than 100 players. They narrow it to that amount. What is the big ****ing deal toots?

People just like to bitch. I like that we're finally drafting for a system and we're steering clear of people who don't fit. I love that we put a premium on smarts and toughness. I want to see how this year plays out.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 05:10 PM
It's basically the same as fantasy drafts. In a 20-team baseball league, for years Jeff Kingery listed just 4 or 5 guys at each position, and he won or finished top 3 year after year. Obviously the key is to select the right guys to list ... hope that part improves.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 05:18 PM
People just like to b****. I like that we're finally drafting for a system and we're steering clear of people who don't fit. I love that we put a premium on smarts and toughness. I want to see how this year plays out.

I don't want to start yet another thinly veiled for-or-against Josh argument, but that is a very rose-colored look at things. Khan, we had a near-unprecedented 5 picks in the first 64. Three of them are highly questionable, and another underwhelmed. Only Darcel McBath has shown real flashes.

I know many guys are pro-Josh, and that's great, but let's be realistic.

tsiguy96
04-11-2010, 05:27 PM
I don't want to start yet another thinly veiled for-or-against Josh argument, but that is a very rose-colored look at things. Khan, we had a near-unprecedented 5 picks in the first 64. Three of them are highly questionable, and another underwhelmed. Only Darcel McBath has shown real flashes.

I know many guys are pro-Josh, and that's great, but let's be realistic.

so are you saying that any single one of them is not both football smart and tough? they didnt perform great their first year ok, does that change their character and passion for the game? doesnt mean they wont be good, they were rookies last year.

Mediator12
04-11-2010, 05:28 PM
I don't want to start yet another thinly veiled for-or-against Josh argument, but that is a very rose-colored look at things. Khan, we had a near-unprecedented 5 picks in the first 64. Three of them are highly questionable, and another underwhelmed. Only Darcel McBath has shown real flashes.

I know many guys are pro-Josh, and that's great, but let's be realistic.

The sad thing is that most of last years top 64 would struggle to be in this years top 100. I am not very thrilled with the early production of some of the selections from last year, but it actually shows the actual depth of the team is not as horrible as some people think. Plus, the areas where there is depth in this years draft are very different from last years.

I would so much rather hold those 5 picks in this draft rather than last years draft. However, that is not how it worked out.

WolfpackGuy
04-11-2010, 05:39 PM
I would so much rather hold those 5 picks in this draft rather than last years draft.

Amen.

Once Raji was gone, there was no reason to stay at 12.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 05:43 PM
Are your neurons firing now? This ain't hard.

If you really think they want McCoy more than Suh, you're the one whose neurons ain't sparkin' right.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 05:48 PM
so are you saying that any single one of them is not both football smart and tough? they didnt perform great their first year ok, does that change their character and passion for the game? doesnt mean they wont be good, they were rookies last year.

No no, they might prove to be all of that and more, we all damn well hope they do. They just haven't yet, and Khan was stating the "tough and smart" goal as if it had already been accomplished.

I know this sounds counter to what I'm saying, but I think both Knowshon and even Alphonso will be great, Pro-Bowl quality great. Ayers gets some time, like Mike Mayock said ... and I think Richard Quinn was a mistake. I didn't really notice McBath myself, but guys I respect like Khan and montrose and Drek all say he was pretty good, so he's the one guy I listed as fulfilling expectations.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 06:03 PM
People just like to b****. I like that we're finally drafting for a system and we're steering clear of people who don't fit. I love that we put a premium on smarts and toughness. I want to see how this year plays out.

There are posters here who would bitch if their ice cream was cold.

I just don't think people understand.

For example, why would Denver have any 4-3 DE's on their board unless they can project to an OLB in a 3-4? It would be a waste of time and resources to give those guys who do not have that transitional ability a look. Being able to correctly diagnose and see how players fit exactly into the scheme you want to have moving forward is extremely significant. I like that approach.

If players don't fit schematically, why bother with them?

Couple that in with injury concerns and personal conduct issues, and it is quite easy to see how a draft board can become smaller.

I'd rather have a board with 100 players who check out in all of the above (scheme, medical, personal) with a lot of homework done on them as opposed to a board with 300 names with ambiguity and concerns regarding the latter two issues.

Play2win
04-11-2010, 06:29 PM
Quality not quantity

baja
04-11-2010, 06:40 PM
People just like to b****. I like that we're finally drafting for a system and we're steering clear of people who don't fit. I love that we put a premium on smarts and toughness. I want to see how this year plays out.

Exactly!

How do some people not see & appreciate this.

Although most everyone is warming up to Josh ball and the new Denver Broncos

I love that we now have a team that by design nobody is going to push around anymore.

I love the style of team football Josh has brought to Denver.

mhgaffney
04-11-2010, 06:42 PM
Sometimes it's worthwhile to see the 2010 prospects through the eyes of a different fan base.

Check out this breakdown posted over at the NE Patriot fan site
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2010/01/2010-patriots-big-board.html

Notice they rate Rolando McClain as their top need and talent for 2010. I found this interesting since R McClain does not get a lot of respect on the OM. I checked and the guy never missed a game at Alabama -- despite his medical issues.

Joe Haden is another prospect that could be there at #11.


SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 2010

2010 Patriots Big Board

The 2010 Patriots Big Board ranks the NFL Draft prospects that seem to fit the Patriots system, team needs, and have a realistic chance of being available at pick #22 or within reasonable trading distance.

Updated: 4/11/10

1. Rolando McClain, LB, Alabama (Previous: 1)
3-Down backer that has the football IQ that Belichick desires. Great frame and athleticism compliment his amazing instincts. As true as a can't miss prospect as you will see.

2. Brandon Graham, DE/OLB, Michigan (Previous: 2)
Graham hates to lose and works every down to make sure that his team is in a position to win. Great motor compliments his quick first step and impressive balance. Could play 3-4 OLB or a situational DE in the 4-3.

3. Jason Pierre-Paul, DE/OLB, USF (Previous: 3)
Very raw hybrid prospect that has athleticism to spare. Will continue to improve by honing his technique and expanding his rush-move repertoire.

4. Jared Odrick, DL, Penn State (Previous: 4)
Odrick is a talented one-gap penetrator that could be coached up to play the 5-technique. Very quick first step and good functional strength.

5. Sergio Kindle, OLB, Texas (Previous: Unranked)
Watch his junior tape, when Brian Orakpo was still around, and you wonder why he isn't a top 10 pick. Watch his senior tape, sans Orakpo, and you wonder how he is a 1st rounder. Loads of talent.

6. Joe Haden, CB, Florida (Previous: 6)
Haden is an incredibly talented corner that will not make it to #22. His physical play, great instincts, solid coverage and ball skills would make it worth it to trade up for him, no matter if he runs a 4.4 or 4.5 forty.

7. Derrick Morgan, DE, Georgia Tech (Previous: 7)
We have concerns about Morgan ever being able to play 3-4 OLB, but his pass-rush skills are hard to ignore. Playing as a situational 4-3 DE or pure 3-4 rush end for a year would allow Morgan time to develop into a three-down 3-4 OLB.

8. Maurkice Pouncey, OL, Florida (Previous: 8)
Pouncey is a blocker that would give the Patriots lots of versatility in the interior line. Pouncey could play either guard spot and center, which is a premium position in a 3-4 division.

9. Jerry Hughes, OLB, TCU (Previous: Unranked)
Conversion prospect whose biggest issue is his lack of ideal size, being a couple of inches shorter (6-1) than the Patriots like. Violent tackler with a good first step in his pass-rush.

10. Carlos Dunlap, DE/OLB, Florida (Previous: 5)
Even with his off-field issues, Dunlap has a rare breed of athleticism, speed, and versatility. Dunlap compares well to Mario Williams and Julius Peppers in every area but motor and motivation. Did not interview well at the NFL Combine. It wouldn't surprise me to have Dunlap in the top 3 players on the Patriots board, or to be off it completely.

Just Missed:
Mike Iupati, OG, Idaho

Requiem
04-11-2010, 06:44 PM
The list from that site sucks balls.

cutthemdown
04-11-2010, 07:29 PM
My only problem with this method is that it's hard to put proper value on guys in relation to where they most likely fall on other people's boards if you don't have them on your board at all. Just seems like it can lead to making some real reaches.

I think the point is you don't have to worry about that with a board of only players whose skills you like. You just worry about getting one of them at each pick.

I'm sure they still have an idea of if a lot of teams like players at there spot to use that as a gauge to that picks value for a trade.

But I think they could care less what other teams think of the players they select.

Clark
04-11-2010, 07:55 PM
Go ahead be snide, it easier to be that way when you don't want to get in a adult like discussion. Gathering and identifying resources isn't different in modern business world, wither in making widgets or running a football team. When you are second tier company in any market you attempting to get right folks in place to make your company the market leader.

The current Denver team is not like the NE Patriots teams of the last decade, we don't have the talent or depth they had. So we can not copy what they did, because conditions are different. IF Denver reach that status like the PATS did, then we can very selecting in our scouting and spending of resources. Until that time, Denver needs to not loose any flexibility on getting right folks in there.

Have you considered the possibility that the Pats got their talent and depth by using the short list strategy?

I believe the only relevant questions are: Can you evaluate talent? And if you use a short list, do you still have players left on your list in a position of need in round 7?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-11-2010, 08:13 PM
So for those who want a bigger draft board, what exactly will that do if it's full of guys who don't fit Denver's offensive and defensive systems?

gyldenlove
04-11-2010, 08:16 PM
The only issue I see with using a short list is the temptation to reach because suddenly you are stuck in a situation with only 1 guy who is suitable. Much like the Jarvis Moss pick, we were looking at Harrell, Moss and Timmons, when Timmons and Harrell both got drafted we suddenly only had 1 guy on the board and traded up unwisely to get him. Meanwhile all 4 players drafted after Moss have turned into at least decent pros with starting potential.

gyldenlove
04-11-2010, 08:18 PM
So for those who want a bigger draft board, what exactly will that do if it's full of guys who don't fit Denver's offensive and defensive systems?

I want good players, I would rather have a team of good players than a team of system players. How did it go when we tried to get system players for Bates system? I believe it is much easier to turn a good player into a good system player than turning a system player into a good system player.

CEH
04-11-2010, 08:20 PM
I want the draft system where we can get a HOF QB in the 6th round

NE drafts the last 5-6 have been middle of the pack nothing specatular

I think it still comes down to picking the Peyton Manning over the Ryan Leaf

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 08:21 PM
The only issue I see with using a short list is the temptation to reach because suddenly you are stuck in a situation with only 1 guy who is suitable. Much like the Jarvis Moss pick, we were looking at Harrell, Moss and Timmons, when Timmons and Harrell both got drafted we suddenly only had 1 guy on the board and traded up unwisely to get him. Meanwhile all 4 players drafted after Moss have turned into at least decent pros with starting potential.

That's a poor reflection on Shanahan and has little to no correlation to how McD operates his draft.

elsid13
04-11-2010, 08:22 PM
So for those who want a bigger draft board, what exactly will that do if it's full of guys who don't fit Denver's offensive and defensive systems?

Herc

Folks aren't saying fill the board with names of every player in the draft. We should looking around average amount like most teams do -between 175 to 200. Yes there going to be guys on the margin that not look like they fit the system, but then again when they are actually draft and get here they might be extremely successful.

Prime example would be a guy like Ray Lewis, coming out most would have seen him in MLB in 4-3 only. But he was able to adapt be darn successful in modified 3/4 the Raven ran with him.

elsid13
04-11-2010, 08:22 PM
I want the draft system where we can get a HOF QB in the 6th round

Rolling the dice and getting lucky isn't a draft strategy.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 08:32 PM
I want good players, I would rather have a team of good players than a team of system players. How did it go when we tried to get system players for Bates system? I believe it is much easier to turn a good player into a good system player than turning a system player into a good system player.

Again, you make no sense. If Shanahan had a draft system it was flakey at best. Bates? Seriously? All of this points back to how poorly Shanny drafted, not at how McD likes to run his draft board.

You have to draft talent. Aside from 2006 and 2008, Shanny drafted neither talent nor good nor system players. He drafted Duds. Flops. Losers.

Shanny trying to draft system players for Bate's defense, and then firing Bates, and then hiring Coyer, and then firing Coyer, and then hiring Slowitt is a reflection on Shanahan.

Let's see: Dennison, check (congrats, you're the longest tenured defensive coordinator). Rhodes, check. Bates, check. Coyer, check. Slowitt, check.

I'm I forgetting someone?

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 08:33 PM
So for those who want a bigger draft board, what exactly will that do if it's full of guys who don't fit Denver's offensive and defensive systems?

So, your logic is that the only players who do fit our systems are the ones on the short board?

tsiguy96
04-11-2010, 08:36 PM
So, your logic is that the only players who do fit our systems are the ones on the short board?

ummm yea pretty much. theres no reason to draft a guy who wont be able to contribute on this team. they find the right attitude, character and skillset guys for this team. not 4-3 DE who dont ideally fit into a 3-4, or zone cover corners and ask them to play man.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-11-2010, 08:40 PM
So, your logic is that the only players who do fit our systems are the ones on the short board?

Because Denver should put 4-3 lineman or LBs on their board if the Broncos feel they're unable to play in a 3-4? Is that anything other than a waste of time?

Requiem
04-11-2010, 08:46 PM
So, your logic is that the only players who do fit our systems are the ones on the short board?

McDaniels, Xanders and the Scouting Staff would presumably be narrowing down their list to the players who they feel are the best fits for the team, offensive or defensively.

They are bound to be wrong on players. There will be some who slip through the cracks. Some 3-4 teams will be high on a prospect for their team and we may not be. Point is, there is no use in wasting time and resources on prospects who do not make the grade based on their medical history, character concerns or lack of fit to our scheme. That is why the board is short.

I'm not going to whine if the Broncos don't have any 4-3 DE's on their board since they don't fit schematically, especially if they aren't able to transition to a role as a 3-4 OLB.

I'm also not going to whine if the Broncos don't have offensive lineman who grade out well and project to our blocking scheme.

You get the picture.

For me, I see no need in having a board be bigger than it is supposed to be.

Through the evaluation process, there will be clear identifiers and signals to weed out players who are simply unacceptable.

I think given last years troubles, we can already figure out where we need significant upgrades.

Truth be told, we don't have the time or a large enough scouting staff to be investing resources into 300 some players. How well do you think we could adequately do that?

I see strong reason, argumentation and logic for having a smaller board. If I was a GM of the team, I'd rather be heading into the draft with 100 names I'm extremely familiar with than going in there with 300, with over 2/3's of them having little reports and information on.

A larger board simply isn't better by virtue.

The draft isn't an exact science, nor will it ever be -- but I completely understand why a team would take the approach we did last year and will continue to do. As people said, quality over quantity. No sense in having a board filled with names who aren't schematic fits or aren't FTP.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 08:48 PM
So, your logic is that the only players who do fit our systems are the ones on the short board?

"short board"? There could be 100 players on that board.

Clark
04-11-2010, 08:50 PM
It's fine, I guess, IF you have the right short list of players. How many years do pro bowl players emerge from the later rounds. It just seems to me that you have to cast a wide net to catch the fish. Why bother having a large scouting staff? Target your draft needs and employ a few friends & family to go watch the best at those positions. Works for the coaching positions apparently.

Limiting your choices by design just seems dumb

Having a short list doesn't mean you haven't cast a wide net. It depends on how many players you evaluated in generating the list.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 08:52 PM
Because Denver should put 4-3 lineman or LBs on their board if the Broncos feel they're unable to play in a 3-4? Is that anything other than a waste of time?

I agree there's no reason to put 4-3 specific players on the board ... but those exclusions themselves fall far short of explaining how short these lists are.

Tombstone RJ
04-11-2010, 08:53 PM
Remember, the Broncos are only drafting 6 players. Maybe 7or 8 if they make a trade. For argument's sake let's say they end up with 8 picks in this strong draft.

They now have 100 guys they have to fit in 8 spots. Then, they have all the undrafted players to go after.

Requiem
04-11-2010, 08:57 PM
I agree there's no reason to put 4-3 specific players on the board ... but those exclusions themselves fall far short of explaining how short these lists are.

There are a ton of reasons that can explain why a draft board would only have 100 names on it, scheme is just one of them.

BroncoBuff
04-11-2010, 09:05 PM
There are a ton of reasons that can explain why a draft board would only have 100 names on it, scheme is just one of them.

That's what I was driving at ... I think Herc knows that actually.

I'm okay with a smaller board. Like I said, it works very well in fantasy drafts. That's not a jab, they're very similar functions.

baja
04-11-2010, 09:20 PM
The only issue I see with using a short list is the temptation to reach because suddenly you are stuck in a situation with only 1 guy who is suitable. Much like the Jarvis Moss pick, we were looking at Harrell, Moss and Timmons, when Timmons and Harrell both got drafted we suddenly only had 1 guy on the board and traded up unwisely to get him. Meanwhile all 4 players drafted after Moss have turned into at least decent pros with starting potential.

I see it as a wise plan to calmly and thoroughly identify before hand the players you want on your team and discard the rest and not get caught up in the temptation to take a guy because he is dropping to you on draft day.

I like the approach. The draft is a process of elimination and you cull the list as soon as you identify someone that is not a fit and you don't look back and a lean mean list two weeks before the draft sounds like wise planning to me.

Archer81
04-11-2010, 09:53 PM
Herc

Folks aren't saying fill the board with names of every player in the draft. We should looking around average amount like most teams do -between 175 to 200. Yes there going to be guys on the margin that not look like they fit the system, but then again when they are actually draft and get here they might be extremely successful.

Prime example would be a guy like Ray Lewis, coming out most would have seen him in MLB in 4-3 only. But he was able to adapt be darn successful in modified 3/4 the Raven ran with him.


The Ravens won a superbowl with a 4-3. Two gigantic space eaters in front of Lewis to keep blockers off of him, because he gets engulfed by larger offensive linemen and can be moved out of the way. Gregg and Ngata are the same thing, because Suggs becomes a DE on rushing downs.

:Broncos:

cutthemdown
04-12-2010, 04:14 AM
Because Denver should put 4-3 lineman or LBs on their board if the Broncos feel they're unable to play in a 3-4? Is that anything other than a waste of time?

Unless it's a 4-3 tackle they think can learn end. Or just to know who other teams like. Just because they say they may only have 40 guys they want to select, doesn't mean they aren't well informed on the rest.

Drek
04-12-2010, 04:23 AM
That's what I was driving at ... I think Herc knows that actually.

I'm okay with a smaller board. Like I said, it works very well in fantasy drafts. That's not a jab, they're very similar functions.

I would say scheme is far and away the #1 reason for it here in Denver though.

Its all McDaniels talks about, how guys fit our scheme. Its all Belichick talks about too really, same with Parcells.

A team that sits down and lists the top 300 or so guys and says "there we go, we draft the highest guy on the board who's still available" is a team that has no direction.

If after culling out the bad character guys, the guys who don't seem mentally capable to digest their role in the system, and the guys who just aren't good fits they're left with 10 guys that is better than shoehorning in players to push the list up to 50. Those 40 extra guys will likely just end up as busts anyways, as opposed to magically turning into a different football player that does fit the scheme.

A smaller board just means you need to go get your guys, don't just wait and take the best option at your designated spot.

This is where the Quinn/Bruton/Olsen deal came in. The Broncos had those three guys targeted with the two thirds and our fourth. They where unsure if Quinn would make it to their 3rd, but felt confident that Bruton and Olsen would be around in the 4th. So they used both 3rds to get a late 2nd and 4th, at which point they got the guys they wanted.

fontaine
04-12-2010, 05:21 AM
Who the hell cares what New England do? How did drafting Chad Jackson work out for them?

All I care about is Denver improving their drafts in the first two rounds where it makes the most difference starting from the five picks last year in the first two rounds.

If those kinds of picks don't pan out then it won't matter if we have 1 or a 1000 players in the board.