PDA

View Full Version : What Might Have Been...


Rohirrim
04-25-2010, 12:12 PM
A few people seem to be under the impression that the pick used on Tebow was some kind of "freebie" due to the trades. Maybe in Wonderland, but not in the real world. Of course, if Earl Thomas turns out to be a star, the "Ed Reed Syndrome" will have a new name on it, as the Broncos could have stood pat and taken him at #11. Instead, they traded down. Had they not traded back up into the first to take Tebow, they would have had the additional picks at #43, #70, and #114. That is what is invested in Tebow.

If he turns out to be a franchise QB for the Broncos, it's all good. If he turns out to be Josh's version of Shanahan's experiment with Bradley Van Pelt (although much more expensive), then not so good. Anyway, the Broncos could have gone in another direction and then pursued Locker, Luck or Mallett next year when they'll have two second rounders and a first to trade up with.

It could have looked like this:

22. Demaryius Thomas, WR
43. Toby Gerhart, RB
45. Zane Beadles, LG
70. Alex Carrington, DE
80. JD Walton, OC
114. AJ Edds, ILB
137. Perrish Cox, CB/KR
183. Syd'Quan Thompson, CB/ST
232. Jammie Kirlew, DE

Of course, it's possible the Broncos might not have felt the need to trade next year's fifth for two sevenths this year, had they not gone after Tebow.

Anyway, to consider Tebow some kind of a "freebie" is just, plain wrong. He represents a sizable investment.

Inkana7
04-25-2010, 12:14 PM
I like our draft better than that one.

theAPAOps5
04-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Would, coulda, shoulda. You build your team in rounds 2-4. You take a risk on a superstar in round 1. What could have been? Seems to me this draft was excellent because of the needs that were filled.

Oh and it was a freebie from trading down. McD too a risk with other peoples picks.

Kaylore
04-25-2010, 12:16 PM
In three years we'll see. Tebow is boom or bust. They'll be no middle ground with him. The rest of the draft is less volatile.

Doggcow
04-25-2010, 12:16 PM
An investment that was only there after we traded back. McD worked this draft.

Even if you hate the pick, you have to love the way McD manipulated this draft to get the guys we wanted.

Wes Mantooth
04-25-2010, 12:17 PM
its over. get used to it.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-25-2010, 12:20 PM
Might not like the picks, but McD moved around masterfully to get the picks he needed to acquire the 2 guys he wanted in the 1st.

Rohirrim
04-25-2010, 12:21 PM
its over. get used to it.

I've always wondered about this kind of a response on a message board dedicated to discussions about football. :rofl:

Bronco Yoda
04-25-2010, 12:24 PM
I agree it wasn't a freebie. It did cost us something but McD's wheeling-and-dealing paid for some of it as well.

Rohirrim
04-25-2010, 12:25 PM
Might not like the picks, but McD moved around masterfully to get the picks he needed to acquire the 2 guys he wanted in the 1st.

I agree. The trading was masterful. The point of this is trying to understand where people are coming from who say that trading three picks to move back into the first is some kind of freebie. Those three picks represent the value of dropping from 11 to 22, and they also represent three players, whoever they might have been.

bpc
04-25-2010, 12:26 PM
Even as arrogant as McDaniels can be at times, I don't think he would throw away a pick on a guy who he didn't think could thrive and produce in his pass specific system he's had over all these years in NE and Denver.

I like this move as it clearly puts us moving in a direction... towards success, or failure, with Tebow being the lynchpin of that flow.

If he's good, we'll be winning. If he sucks, we'll lose, and McDaniels will be fired.

It's all good.

Cito Pelon
04-25-2010, 12:53 PM
Stealing Rev's idea from the "Only One Conclusion Possible" thread - what if Denver stayed at 24, took Tebow at 24 instead of trading the 2, 3, 4, 4 for 22 and 25?

WABronco
04-25-2010, 01:04 PM
See, I look at that draft and I'm like "GUHHh, that is boring as hell." I pay attention to the draft, know of prospects, understand how it works and all that. Normally I'd be excited about a solid class of lunch pail guys like that, but Tebow made this draft for me. I'm more excited for this year than I have been in a while, to be honest.

But don't get me wrong, I like getting some big nasty's up front. Finally getting away from that p***Y-ass-can't-move-anyone-off-the-ball same ol' same ol' (and ya the ZBS was amazing, just sayin'). I laugh inside when I'm listening to Seattle sports radio and they yammer on about "WITH ALEX GIBBS HERE WE"RE GONNA POUND THE BALL, BE TOUGH, ETC. Hahaha ya good luck with that guys.

WABronco
04-25-2010, 01:07 PM
Stealing Rev's idea from the "Only One Conclusion Possible" thread - what if Denver stayed at 24, took Tebow at 24 instead of trading the 2, 3, 4, 4 for 22 and 25?

Nah I like having Thomas AND Decker in the fold. Not to keen on counting on the Stokely's and McKinnley's of the world.

Archer81
04-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I like our draft better than that one.


This.


:Broncos:

TheReverend
04-25-2010, 02:04 PM
Nah I like having Thomas AND Decker in the fold. Not to keen on counting on the Stokely's and McKinnley's of the world.

Like I said in the other thread that he's referencing, if we take Tebow at 24, it's more than likely either Thomas or Benn are available at 43.

TonyR
04-25-2010, 02:10 PM
Like I said in the other thread that he's referencing, if we take Tebow at 24, it's more than likely either Thomas or Benn are available at 43.

I have to agree with you on this although I doubt Thomas makes it that deep. At the very least we shouldn't have given up the 4th to move from 24 to 22.

Mr.Meanie
04-25-2010, 02:12 PM
Like I said in the other thread that he's referencing, if we take Tebow at 24, it's more than likely either Thomas or Benn are available at 43.

Or not. Obviously they had Thomas as the highest rated WR on their board. Why take a chance on a player you deem inferior because you are praying they fall to you? If Thomas was gone and they didn't like Benn, they would have screwed themselves by trying to outsmart everyone, instead of just taking their favorite player when they could.

I could easily see the Rams taking Thomas, and the Bucs still taking Benn... leaving us without our #1 rated WR.

TheReverend
04-25-2010, 02:16 PM
Or not. Obviously they had Thomas as the highest rated WR on their board. Why take a chance on a player you deem inferior because you are praying they fall to you? If Thomas was gone and they didn't like Benn, they would have screwed themselves by trying to outsmart everyone, instead of just taking their favorite player when they could.

I could easily see the Rams taking Thomas, and the Bucs still taking Benn... leaving us without our #1 rated WR.

Take it up with the baby whining in the original post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate saying "This MIGHT have happened" and in the post that I actually made about all this up I said it takes hindsight to find any fault with how they worked the draft.

gyldenlove
04-25-2010, 02:21 PM
It looks like for better or for worse Mcdaniels ultimate success as a head coach in Denver will be tied to the success of the 09 and 10 drafts, over those two drafts we have drafted 4 players in each of the first two rounds, and 2 each in the rounds 3 through 7. That represents a very sizable influx of talent that has been handpicked by Mcdaniels and it also represents a significant outflux of talent traded to acquire those picks.

If Mcdaniels is ultimately to succeed in Denver it is imperative that the players drafted in 09 and 10 more than balance out the talent traded out, especially since we are running short of tradable commodities to acquire more draft picks.

Wether or not this and 09 were good drafts or bad drafts can't be judged today or even after the 2010 season, it will ultimately be decided either by Mcdaniels termination as Broncos head coach or as numerous playoff berths in the decade to come with Mcdaniels on the sideline.

TheReverend
04-25-2010, 02:22 PM
Take it up with the baby whining in the original post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate saying "This MIGHT have happened" and in the post that I actually made about all this up I said it takes hindsight to find any fault with how they worked the draft.

I take back the bolded statement. Roh is probably one of 1,000 on this board that didn't like Tebow pre-draft, and still doesn't. That takes spine and bringing it to a "baby whining" level is no better than the fan police rampant around these parts.

Roh, I think you're totally wrong, but +respect for this.

Gcver2ver3
04-25-2010, 02:24 PM
A few people seem to be under the impression that the pick used on Tebow was some kind of "freebie" due to the trades. Maybe in Wonderland, but not in the real world. Of course, if Earl Thomas turns out to be a star, the "Ed Reed Syndrome" will have a new name on it, as the Broncos could have stood pat and taken him at #11. Instead, they traded down. Had they not traded back up into the first to take Tebow, they would have had the additional picks at #43, #70, and #114. That is what is invested in Tebow.

If he turns out to be a franchise QB for the Broncos, it's all good. If he turns out to be Josh's version of Shanahan's experiment with Bradley Van Pelt (although much more expensive), then not so good. Anyway, the Broncos could have gone in another direction and then pursued Locker, Luck or Mallett next year when they'll have two second rounders and a first to trade up with.

It could have looked like this:

22. Demaryius Thomas, WR
43. Toby Gerhart, RB
45. Zane Beadles, LG
70. Alex Carrington, DE
80. JD Walton, OC
114. AJ Edds, ILB
137. Perrish Cox, CB/KR
183. Syd'Quan Thompson, CB/ST
232. Jammie Kirlew, DE

Of course, it's possible the Broncos might not have felt the need to trade next year's fifth for two sevenths this year, had they not gone after Tebow.

Anyway, to consider Tebow some kind of a "freebie" is just, plain wrong. He represents a sizable investment.

i don't think anyone thinks that it was a free pick...of course is not free, McD paid to get the extra 1st...

but we picked twice in the 1st round due to his wheeling and dealing...so he used the 1st pick on a need and the extra 1st on a chance at something great...i ain't mad at that...if tebow was our only 1st rd pick, i'd be a little bit more worried...

btw, i like McD's draft better than the one you have...

but only time will tell...

snowspot66
04-25-2010, 02:28 PM
This is all based on the assumption that we would have traded back to get those extra picks even if we weren't after Tebow. I think that's the only reason we did trade back.

WABronco
04-25-2010, 02:29 PM
Like I said in the other thread that he's referencing, if we take Tebow at 24, it's more than likely either Thomas or Benn are available at 43.

True, true.

I would've liked Benn as well, but am really intrigued by Thomas so I'm not too upset over trading back into the 1st for Tim.

Bronco CB40
04-25-2010, 02:35 PM
The quarterback is the most important position in football though. If McDaniels strikes gold, it's going to help this franchise for the next 10 years.

Look at the success of the Patriots and Colts, the quarterback has been the one constant over the last decade. QB is the key to long-term success. I can find Toby Gerhart, Alex Carrington or A.J. Edds in any random draft.

Offensive linemen, defensive linemen, skill position players come and go. They can be found on the FA market and in any draft on any random year.

Broncoman13
04-25-2010, 03:25 PM
A few people seem to be under the impression that the pick used on Tebow was some kind of "freebie" due to the trades. Maybe in Wonderland, but not in the real world. Of course, if Earl Thomas turns out to be a star, the "Ed Reed Syndrome" will have a new name on it, as the Broncos could have stood pat and taken him at #11. Instead, they traded down. Had they not traded back up into the first to take Tebow, they would have had the additional picks at #43, #70, and #114. That is what is invested in Tebow.

If he turns out to be a franchise QB for the Broncos, it's all good. If he turns out to be Josh's version of Shanahan's experiment with Bradley Van Pelt (although much more expensive), then not so good. Anyway, the Broncos could have gone in another direction and then pursued Locker, Luck or Mallett next year when they'll have two second rounders and a first to trade up with.

It could have looked like this:

22. Demaryius Thomas, WR
43. Toby Gerhart, RB
45. Zane Beadles, LG
70. Alex Carrington, DE
80. JD Walton, OC
114. AJ Edds, ILB
137. Perrish Cox, CB/KR
183. Syd'Quan Thompson, CB/ST
232. Jammie Kirlew, DE

Of course, it's possible the Broncos might not have felt the need to trade next year's fifth for two sevenths this year, had they not gone after Tebow.

Anyway, to consider Tebow some kind of a "freebie" is just, plain wrong. He represents a sizable investment.

Not trying to say that Gerhardt, Carrington, and Edds aren't good players... But I'll take Tebow over them any day of the week. We win with Tebow and Pat Bowlen wins big time with Tebow. Who do you think he'd prefer to have?

Bronco Yoda
04-25-2010, 03:27 PM
I still can't believe the Jags didn't take Tebow. Purely from a biz point of view. They need to get butts in the seats and that would have done it.

Broncoman13
04-25-2010, 03:28 PM
Seriously, think how easy of a sell that must've been to Pat Bowlen. Then the day after you have Tim Tebow Broncos Jersey as the 6th highest search on google. I think Pat Bowlen is probably the happiest guy in the NFL right now with that draft pick. Even if he doesn't work out, he's put the Broncos back in the limelight, rejuvenated the existing fan base, and brought thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new fans to the Orange n Blue. Yeah, I bet that was a tough sell. ;D

Gcver2ver3
04-25-2010, 03:28 PM
I still can't believe the Jags didn't take Tebow. Purely from a biz point of view. They need to get butts in the seats and that would have done it.

they'll be in LA in due time...

the fact that they didnt get tebow basically finalizes it in my mind...

meangene
04-25-2010, 04:19 PM
I have to agree with you on this although I doubt Thomas makes it that deep. At the very least we shouldn't have given up the 4th to move from 24 to 22.

I think Thomas was more important to us than folks realize because of his speed (allegedly in the 4.4 range) and the need to have it at that WR position in our offense - basically the Randy Moss role. The other highly rated guys (Benn, Decker, Williams) were mid 4.5 guys as was Bryant at his pro day. Thomas' speed will keep teams from cheating up on us. NE is notorious for trading back and we don't know who might have wanted to trade up and maybe take Thomas. He was supposedly gaining momentum leading up to the draft. We gave up a fourth we got in our first move down - well worth it IMO.