PDA

View Full Version : Current Draft Position


Pages : 1 [2]

Drek
12-26-2010, 01:53 PM
But will those guys be there in the second round? It is a possibility, but Paea is already a first-round guy at this point, and Heyward and Bailey have that talent, but just never lived up to it because they are mentally weak. They are both good prospects, but I'd like to stay away from guys who don't have it between the ears.

Big guys like that get a lot of mid-season hype and then fall like stones in the draft. Dan Williams did it just this past year. Williams was considered as high as an early teens pick even heading into draft day and wound up going 26th. Paea is a fringe first rounder at best right now.

Heyward and Bailey are very similar to Fairley and Dareus, guys who've turned it on in their senior seasons. They just haven't done it quite as dramatically as the later two. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them puts up a monster combine and becomes this year's Tyson Alualu though. Still, they're examples of good value in the second round.

I'm not saying that we need to get Heyward/Bailey and Paea either like those are the only options. I personally love Adrian Clayborn's game but as he gets further from game days and spends more time doing combine drills he's going to slide. He could be a fantastic steal for us in the second round. Maybe PHil Taylor and Jerrell Powe are better choices for NT than Paea. This draft's DL talent looks deepest in the late 1st to early 3rd types. Just so happens we have three picks in that range. So why over pick someone like Fairley or Dareus, impressive prospects in their own right for sure but neither is a complete package, when you could get a transcendent prospect like Peterson?

If Peterson runs like he's supposed to (low 4.4's to high 4.3's in the 40 for example) he's going to be regarded as the best corner prospect since Deon Sanders. If his 40 exceeds expectations (low 4.3's) he's going to be viewed as the best corner prospect in history. He has pedigree on par with Champ Bailey and Charles Woodson. Those are guys you just don't pass on. Especially at a position like corner where its all about a man working on an island and super elite talents have a lower frequency of draft day busts than most other positions.

You sign Peterson, extend Champ, sink the 2nd and 3rd rounds in the DL, and then sign the best FA DL help you can get (Jolly or Jenkins from Green Bay, Franklin from SF, etc.). Thats the recipe for starting to turn around this defense. Not looking for an instant fix DL who's been a mid-tier performer until he blows up the year before going pro.

If the Broncos end up with a top 5 pick they need to make "fixing the defense" priority #2, because priority #1 instantly becomes "making the right pick on our new superstar player".

Requiem
12-26-2010, 01:57 PM
Agreed. I've been saying the same things about Peterson too.

Like your jab at Fairley at the end, but I completely agree. Two years of D-I experience are not enough for him to come in and make an immediate impact. He is still raw as hell, and developing as a player. Moreover, he is a better fit for the 4-3 anyways. It is beyond me why some posters here are advocating for his selection.

Take Peterson and solidify one of your DB positions for the next 5-6 years at least. Do as you said with the rest of the defense with our other early picks. Heck, we still could even acquire more.

Your plan of attack is sound. FWD it to Elway.

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Big guys like that get a lot of mid-season hype and then fall like stones in the draft. Dan Williams did it just this past year. Williams was considered as high as an early teens pick even heading into draft day and wound up going 26th. Paea is a fringe first rounder at best right now.

Heyward and Bailey are very similar to Fairley and Dareus, guys who've turned it on in their senior seasons. They just haven't done it quite as dramatically as the later two. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them puts up a monster combine and becomes this year's Tyson Alualu though. Still, they're examples of good value in the second round.

I'm not saying that we need to get Heyward/Bailey and Paea either like those are the only options. I personally love Adrian Clayborn's game but as he gets further from game days and spends more time doing combine drills he's going to slide. He could be a fantastic steal for us in the second round. Maybe PHil Taylor and Jerrell Powe are better choices for NT than Paea. This draft's DL talent looks deepest in the late 1st to early 3rd types. Just so happens we have three picks in that range. So why over pick someone like Fairley or Dareus, impressive prospects in their own right for sure but neither is a complete package, when you could get a transcendent prospect like Peterson?

If Peterson runs like he's supposed to (low 4.4's to high 4.3's in the 40 for example) he's going to be regarded as the best corner prospect since Deon Sanders. If his 40 exceeds expectations (low 4.3's) he's going to be viewed as the best corner prospect in history. He has pedigree on par with Champ Bailey and Charles Woodson. Those are guys you just don't pass on. Especially at a position like corner where its all about a man working on an island and super elite talents have a lower frequency of draft day busts than most other positions.

You sign Peterson, extend Champ, sink the 2nd and 3rd rounds in the DL, and then sign the best FA DL help you can get (Jolly or Jenkins from Green Bay, Franklin from SF, etc.). Thats the recipe for starting to turn around this defense. Not looking for an instant fix DL who's been a mid-tier performer until he blows up the year before going pro.

If the Broncos end up with a top 5 pick they need to make "fixing the defense" priority #2, because priority #1 instantly becomes "making the right pick on our new superstar player".


Your a great poster Drek agree 100%

Requiem
12-26-2010, 05:10 PM
Still picking Top 5 with a win today. If we lose next week, a Top 5 is guaranteed. A win (pending the outcomes of other games) could take us as low as 10.

SpringStein
12-26-2010, 05:12 PM
Still picking Top 5 with a win today. If we lose next week, a Top 5 is guaranteed. A win (pending the outcomes of other games) could take us as low as 10.

Actually, Req, still at 2 with Cincy, Zona and Lions wins.

Requiem
12-26-2010, 05:13 PM
Yeah, I figured we were at #2 but I wasn't sure of (SOS) got impacted.

SpringStein
12-26-2010, 05:13 PM
Not nearly enough to change the order.

BowlenBall
12-26-2010, 05:18 PM
2-13 Carolina Panthers
4-11 Denver Broncos
4-11 Cincinnatti Bengals
4-11 Buffalo Bills
5-10 Cleveland Browns
5-10 Houston Texans
5-10 Dallas Cowboys
5-10 Detroit Lions
5-10 Arizona Cardinals
5-10 San Francisco 49ers

If we lose next week, I believe we'll be picking #2 due to strength of schedule tiebreakers.

If we win, we'll pick anywhere from 4-10, but god knows where exactly....

RhymesayersDU
12-26-2010, 05:20 PM
Jeez. Talk about a conflict. I want Tebow to continue to improve and win, but it'd serve us well to lose next week. It really would.

NASurfer
12-26-2010, 05:20 PM
2-13 Carolina Panthers
4-11 Denver Broncos
4-11 Cincinnatti Bengals
4-11 Buffalo Bills
5-10 Cleveland Browns
5-10 Houston Texans
5-10 Dallas Cowboys
5-10 Detroit Lions
5-10 Arizona Cardinals
5-10 San Francisco 49ers

If we lose next week, I believe we'll be picking #2 due to strength of schedule tiebreakers.

If we win, we'll pick anywhere from 4-10, but god knows where exactly....
The NFC West teams are the only ones who can get by us on SOS tiebreaker.

That's a lot of teams bunched up though.

Requiem
12-26-2010, 05:20 PM
Patrick Peterson c'mon down!!!!

extralife
12-26-2010, 05:22 PM
Jeez. Talk about a conflict. I want Tebow to continue to improve and win, but it'd serve us well to lose next week. It really would.

and throw in the fact that it's against Phillis and the Chargers. uuuuuughggghghgh. My head says root for a game we lose 48-45, but it's pretty not possible to cheer for the Chargers to beat us.

Requiem
12-26-2010, 05:25 PM
Houston hosts Jacksonville.

Buffalo travels to New York Jets.

Dallas travels to Philadelphia.

Cincy travels to Baltimore.

Detroit hosts Minnesota.

Arizona travels to San Francisco.

It is unfortunate all the teams are playing opponents they will likely lose to.

Great thing is, Arizona or San Francisco has to win -- unlikely there is a tie.

I think at worst we are #9. If we lose, we still stay #2.

SoDak Bronco
12-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Houston hosts Jacksonville.

Buffalo travels to New York Jets.

Dallas travels to Philadelphia.

Cincy travels to Baltimore.

Detroit hosts Minnesota.

Arizona travels to San Francisco.

It is unfortunate all the teams are playing opponents they will likely lose to.

Great thing is, Arizona or San Francisco has to win -- unlikely there is a tie.

I think at worst we are #9. If we lose, we still stay #2.

For the betterment of the franchise, I hope we pick #2.

Kaylore
12-26-2010, 05:46 PM
Perfect time to win a game. What an awesome day.

Ratboy
12-26-2010, 06:11 PM
Perfect time to win a game. What an awesome day.

Why the **** is it a perfect time to win a game?

We could have just blown getting a franchise player.

Inkana7
12-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Why the **** is it a perfect time to win a game?

We could have just blown getting a franchise player.

You really ****ing suck, you know that?

BroncoInferno
12-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Wow...so even with the win, we are still in position for the #2 pick? Awesome!

Ratboy
12-26-2010, 06:15 PM
You really ****ing suck, you know that?

Yes, I suck.

You know who else will suck? The 2011 Denver Broncos if they win next week and it costs us getting an elite player that can actually help our franchise.

Hulamau
12-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Patrick Peterson c'mon down!!!!

Im all for it! Hopefully Champ will still be here to mentor him as well!

Hercules Rockefeller
12-26-2010, 06:18 PM
Using the SOS from this week, weaker SOS than SF and Arizona, but one has to win next week, and tied with Dallas out of the 5 win teams.

Depending on how it breaks down with Dallas, a win should take them no lower than 5th.

Hamrob
12-26-2010, 06:24 PM
The NFC West teams are the only ones who can get by us on SOS tiebreaker.

That's a lot of teams bunched up though.http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21479/2010-strength-of-schedule

If this is the SOS that we're working off of...then, yes only San Fran and AZ would beat us in a tie breaker. That means:

If we win next week...the lowest we could fall to...would be the #5 spot. That's assuming both the Bengals and Bills lose and all other teams lose, except for one of San Fran/AZ (who play each other). It would fall like this:

2-14 Carolina Panthers
4-12 Cincinnatti Bengals
4-12 Buffalo Bills
5-11 Arizona Cardinals or 49er's
5-11 Denver Broncos
5-11 Cleveland Browns
5-11 Houston Texans
5-11 Dallas Cowboys
5-11 Detroit Lions
6-10 San Francisco 49ers or Cardinals

gobroncos313
12-26-2010, 06:25 PM
Our defense is not as bad as it seems. They are well below average but not as bad as they seem I thing with just a few play makers they can turn around rather quickly.

Look what happened today in the first half vs the second. The first half our Offense looked a lot like it did for the past several weeks and our d looked really bad. Then in the 2nd half our offense won the time of possession and had some sustained drives and our D held Houston (A decent offense with the NFLS leading rusher playing with a lead) to 3 points. Put Dumerville in that line up and one or two more playmakers with an offense playing much better and our d won't be that bad.

I have concerns on our Oline, they just look aweful. Is it because of two rookies on there? Will they look better next year? I don't know but we need to address something on the oline.

On D I say build on the Dline in Free Agency. Draft Peterson, put him and Cox in at corners and move Champ to safety. Draft some D linememan and LB's in the later picks.

Hulamau
12-26-2010, 06:26 PM
Wow...so even with the win, we are still in position for the #2 pick? Awesome!

That is hard to beat!

Kaylore
12-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Why the **** is it a perfect time to win a game?

We could have just blown getting a franchise player.

Because we didn't lose draft position? Because we're still the two seed? You really don't know?

Boss Man
12-26-2010, 07:36 PM
Our defense is not as bad as it seems. They are well below average but not as bad as they seem I thing with just a few play makers they can turn around rather quickly.

Look what happened today in the first half vs the second. The first half our Offense looked a lot like it did for the past several weeks and our d looked really bad. Then in the 2nd half our offense won the time of possession and had some sustained drives and our D held Houston (A decent offense with the NFLS leading rusher playing with a lead) to 3 points. Put Dumerville in that line up and one or two more playmakers with an offense playing much better and our d won't be that bad.

I have concerns on our Oline, they just look aweful. Is it because of two rookies on there? Will they look better next year? I don't know but we need to address something on the oline.

On D I say build on the Dline in Free Agency. Draft Peterson, put him and Cox in at corners and move Champ to safety. Draft some D linememan and LB's in the later picks.

you people that think were moving champ to saftey next year if he returns are just ***ing crazy...

and i also dont understand why anyone wants peterson when there are some damn good defensive linemen in this draft worthy of a high selection.

we have all seen how worthless a defense is without a pass rush for the last 10 years...

Requiem
12-26-2010, 07:37 PM
Because a 3-4 DE is not worth a top ****ing pick. Ever thought of that one Boss Man?

epicSocialism4tw
12-26-2010, 07:39 PM
you people that think were moving champ to saftey next year if he returns are just ***ing crazy...

and i also dont understand why anyone wants peterson when there are some damn good defensive linemen in this draft worthy of a high selection.

we have all seen how worthless a defense is without a pass rush for the last 10 years...

We need to go with DL.

Seriously.

Every dang pick in this draft should be defensive front 7.

razorwire77
12-26-2010, 07:44 PM
you people that think were moving champ to saftey next year if he returns are just ***ing crazy...

and i also dont understand why anyone wants peterson when there are some damn good defensive linemen in this draft worthy of a high selection.

we have all seen how worthless a defense is without a pass rush for the last 10 years...

Ehh, probably not worthy of a top 3 pick and 8 figures guaranteed. This class is deep in defensive linemen in terms of having a number of good players to take within the first 2 rounds, but there isn't a Ndamukong Suh sitting there that you do a fist pump and run to the podium to draft.

peacepipe
12-26-2010, 07:44 PM
you people that think were moving champ to saftey next year if he returns are just ***ing crazy...

and i also dont understand why anyone wants peterson when there are some damn good defensive linemen in this draft worthy of a high selection.we have all seen how worthless a defense is without a pass rush for the last 10 years...

not at the #2 spot. We've also seen how hard it is to get a great CB.

Bigdawg26
12-26-2010, 07:51 PM
Yeah I would def go with patrick peterson. The kid is a freak and if we resign champ we can use him at corner and safety somewhat like how the saints use malcom jenkins. And we can use the two second round picks on a nose guard and pass rushing de.

Pick Six
12-26-2010, 07:53 PM
Don't worry. We're not going to beat San Diego...Ha!Ha!Ha!

...unless they are resting players for the playoffs...

..OH, WAIT...:clown:

listopencil
12-26-2010, 07:54 PM
If we win next week...the lowest we could fall to...would be the #5 spot.


Well **** all that nonsense about hoping for them to lose. I can't root for the Broncos to lose. I will appreciate a higher draft pick if it happens, but I can't root for them to lose. I just can't do it. And for three spots in the draft? **** that. Go Broncos!

BroncoInferno
12-26-2010, 07:55 PM
We need to go with DL.

Seriously.

Every dang pick in this draft should be defensive front 7.

I agree with Req. A 3-4 lineman is generally not worthy of a top 10 selection. The talents of a guy like Fairly, for example, would be completely wasted as a 3-4 end where his role would be to occupy blockers to open things up for the linebackers. He wouldn't have the opportunity to get up field and collapse the pocket (his strong suit) because that's not the role of a 3-4 end. The only exception would be an elite nose tackle prospect (because they are so hard to find), but there is not such a player in this draft. If we trade out of the top 10, then fine...a 3-4 end would be great. But if we have a top 5 pick, we need to select a guy who plays a position that will allow him to be a play-maker in our defense. Da'Quan Bowers (he'd convert to OLB in 3-4 scheme) or Peterson are the two guys who fit the bill best out of the top 5 prospects. There will be some very good 3-4 DL prospects available in the 2nd round. Now, if the new coach wants to switch back to the 4-3, then a guy like Fairly comes back into play.

Requiem
12-26-2010, 08:02 PM
I wouldn't even select Fairley in the Top 5 if we go back to a 4-3. He is a one year wonder with two years of D-I college experience. I doubt he would bring an immediate impact to helping out our defense.

razorwire77
12-26-2010, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't even select Fairley in the Top 5 if we go back to a 4-3. He is a one year wonder with two years of D-I college experience. I doubt he would bring an immediate impact to helping out our defense.

Several of the DE/DL that grade out as high first rounders are one year wonders. One year production guys, and workout warriors with limited production are huge red flags when you are drafting top 5. It's one thing to take a flier on a guy when you're a decent team picking in the 20's. It's completely different to do it when you're spending the type of financial resources required with a top 3 pick. I hope we avoid Fairley early, and take a guys like Pea, Bailey or Quinn with the 2nd rounders. Clayborn is another physical guy that might drop into the 2nd round because of medical concerns.

Broncoman13
12-26-2010, 08:18 PM
I wouldn't even select Fairley in the Top 5 if we go back to a 4-3. He is a one year wonder with two years of D-I college experience. I doubt he would bring an immediate impact to helping out our defense.

I understand your hesitation, but two years at a D2 school isn't a big deal. I have had friends that left HS as 240 lb LBs. Two years later, two years of Junior College that is, and they are 50 lbs heavier and playing along the DL at Texas A&M. Not so different for Fairley, who I believe was a LB and TE in HS as well. I have also seen a kid graduate HS at 6'4 and end up a 6'10 College Sr. The point is, 18 year old kids are still growing and maturing. Some faster than others. I am sure you can think of some other fab players that started off in Jr College.

As for the thread topic... I'd like to see the team switch Champ to safety now and resign him. Then what we do with our first pick, whether it be DL or DB, would be win win. Bowers looks like a stud, as does Peterson. Based on risk tho, I would go with Peterson as the top tier CBs seemingly have a lower bust rate.

maven
12-26-2010, 08:24 PM
The kid is a freak

This team needs elite talent. You have to take him. And remember kids, it's only 1 pick. There will be plenty of picks in the next two drafts to get DL. This team needs a ton of talent. Peterson is a start.

Bigdawg26
12-26-2010, 08:29 PM
100 percent agreed that we need to get size and talent on D.

Hercules Rockefeller
12-26-2010, 08:41 PM
IMHO, that Detroit win was huge today. Probably the only other team that was going D for sure in the Top 5. Gives Denver a chance to move down a few spots and not completely risk missing out on their target.

Pony Boy
12-26-2010, 09:11 PM
It's amazing how much better a CB plays when there is a a solid push up front. Go DL in the draft, Fairley teamed with Doom would make the whole defence play at a high level.

Hamrob
12-26-2010, 09:23 PM
First of all...I think our focus should be to trade back. That should be the goal in my opinon. Let's trade back and pick up an extra 2nd. Maybe go from #2 to #8. Then pick up the best D-player avaialble with our 1st pick with 4 more picks in the top 65!

Now that will get this team back on track in a hurry. Sprinkle in a few free agents...with our young guys having some more experience under their belts and that's progress.

Finger Roll
12-26-2010, 09:36 PM
IMHO, that Detroit win was huge today. Probably the only other team that was going D for sure in the Top 5. Gives Denver a chance to move down a few spots and not completely risk missing out on their target.

The Bengals and the Bills could pick defense.

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 09:44 PM
IMHO, that Detroit win was huge today. Probably the only other team that was going D for sure in the Top 5. Gives Denver a chance to move down a few spots and not completely risk missing out on their target.


Peterson would have to be Lions #1 target with Prince 2nd

uplink
12-26-2010, 09:52 PM
Peterson would have to be their #1 target with Prince 2nd

Peterson would be the only guy worth taking at #2, otherwise trade down.

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 09:54 PM
Peterson would be the only guy worth taking at #2, otherwise trade down.

I was talking about the lions in my comment. I'd gladly take Peterson at 2 if we pick there.

Pony Boy
12-26-2010, 10:16 PM
You can only be competitive in our division if you put pressure on the QB's. Rivers and Cassel will continue to beat our brains out until we can bring heat up front. Magnify that problem when you play Brady, Manning and Roethlisberger.

ScottXray
12-26-2010, 10:27 PM
Peterson would be Okay. we really neeILB help though. How many times do we see TE's coming across on drag routes that our LBs can't stay with. I don't know if there are any picks at LB in this draft that woulld rate top 5 though.

1. Best player available at Defense, period. If Peterson at CB, okay
2a. Best DL available.
2B Best ILB available
3. Safety
4. OL...RT
6. TE
6. FB
7. Defensive

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 10:28 PM
Luck
Peterson

are my top 2 players

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 10:29 PM
Dareus
Bowers
Fairley

Would help us but, trade down first

gtown
12-26-2010, 10:32 PM
You can only be competitive in our division if you put pressure on the QB's. Rivers and Cassel will continue to beat our brains out until we can bring heat up front. Magnify that problem when you play Brady, Manning and Roethlisberger.

I agree with this. It all starts up front. Team Doom up with Fairley rushing from the inside, and we might just solve those third down issues that have plagued this team. It's a QB's league, and the guys who can put the QB on his back are the second most important asset to a team.

Drek
12-26-2010, 10:32 PM
It's amazing how much better a CB plays when there is a a solid push up front. Go DL in the draft, Fairley teamed with Doom would make the whole defence play at a high level.
Top 5 DL are a complete coin flip even when looking at players who have been collegiate standouts for multiple seasons. You're talking about using the #2 overall pick on a guy who.....

1. is a juco transfer, i.e. not smart enough to meet NCAA admission standards even in the heavy rule bending era we're in today.

2. has only been a D-1 baller for two seasons, the first of which he was a middling player.

3. was coached up this year by a former Lombardi award winner, playing on a national powerhouse team with other NFL level talents all around him.

4. has a proclivity for cheap shots the likes of which now bring the very real possibility of suspensions in today's NFL.

So to you the right move is taking this guy at #2 as opposed to someone who....

1. was a multiple lister high school All-American, USA Today's high school Defensive Player of the Year, a consensus 5 star prospect, and Rivals.com's #8 overall prospect his senior year.

2. Played in 13 games as a freshman, including starting the final four games that year, which happened to include a bowl game.

3. Started every game of his sophomore season and was named a second team All-American afterwards.

4. Started every game of his junior season (this year) which started with a pre-season first team All-American nomination, followed by actually being a first team All-American at the end of the season along with winning the Thorpe Award (nation's best defensive back) and Bednarik Award (nation's best defensive player). This season he also won the SEC Coaches' choice for Conference Defensive Player of the Year and Conference Special Teams Player of the Year.

5. Is listed as being 6'1", 222 pounds, and has been laser timed this spring as running a 4.37 40 yard dash, has a 39" vertical jump, broad jumps 11'1", squats 535, and benches 335. In short the corner equivalent of Calvin Johnson or Suh.

How is this even an argument? Take Peterson and use the two seconds and the third to stock up on DL talent. We've seen KC attempting to overpick their way to an elite DL and all they've got from it are two very expensive middle of the road DEs. Take the elite player you actually have a spot on the field for and use the meat of your other picks to address needs by jockeying for position and taking guys where they make sense.

First of all...I think our focus should be to trade back. That should be the goal in my opinon. Let's trade back and pick up an extra 2nd. Maybe go from #2 to #8. Then pick up the best D-player avaialble with our 1st pick with 4 more picks in the top 65!

Now that will get this team back on track in a hurry. Sprinkle in a few free agents...with our young guys having some more experience under their belts and that's progress.

Trading back out of the top 5 should ALWAYS be your priority move if you can get it.

Look at all the top 5 picks over the last decade or so. How many have panned out? a little better than half? Now look at all the times a team has traded back. Most notably the TWO times San Diego has done it in the span of just a couple years, which they used to net pretty much the entire nucleus of the team that has owned our division for the second half of this decade and has often been considered the most talented team in the entire league held back by poor coaching and leadership.

You ALWAYS trade back out of the top 5 if you can find a partner willing to pay the price. Its a foolproof plan to be better off than making a top 5 pick yourself. But it takes two to tango as it where. That second is not so readily available in today's NFL. We might get lucky if both Luck and Newton jump to the NFL this year, so cross your fingers and hope for that.

If we can't trade though? You go best player available at any need position, not just best at your #1 need. If Peterson goes he's the CB equivalent of Calvin Johnson or Suh. You take him and don't look back.

The Bengals and the Bills could pick defense.

They could, but his comment was that Detroit is the only team that looks locked into defense, since they've recently drafted 1st rounders at all the offensive skill positions (QB, WR, TE, RB). Maybe OL could creep up their list, but with a defensively minded HC looking to build on his hallmark skillset defense is likely their priority.

Buffalo and Cincy meanwhile still need a lot of help on offense.

Hercules Rockefeller
12-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Well Drek wrote a better response than I would have.

No TO + No Ocho Cinco = AJ Green

and this is the year that Buffalo is in position to draft a QB, something they've needed for a decade, even with what Fitzpatrick has done this year

If Luck comes out and you've got Locker projected in the Top 5, Denver's not in a bad spot when they're in front of Buffalo and you've got SF and Minny, two teams who are probably playoff teams with better QB'ing this year, picking behind Buffalo.

NFLBRONCO
12-26-2010, 11:35 PM
If you wanted these guys what pick range would be ok in your book

Bowers


Fairley


Dareus


Prince

razorwire77
12-27-2010, 12:10 AM
If you wanted these guys what pick range would be ok in your book

Bowers


Fairley


Dareus


Prince

Bowers has had injury problems and while his production is decent, I wouldn't take him in the top 10. I'd take him somewhere between 15 and 25.

Fairley has a lot of physical tools, but has been a one year wonder. With the Juco pedigree and dirtiness issues on the field, he screams red flag to me. Might be worth a top 10 pick based on upside, but not top 5 imho.

I like Marcell Dareus, but he's either a five tech DE in a 3-4, or a three tech DT in a 4-3. Personally, I think he'd work better inside in a 4-3, but he only started 4 games is 2009 before becoming a full-time starter is 2010. For a man that size, his motor is good and his athleticism is impressive. Still wouldn't want him as a top 5 pick. 6-11 range would be my pick range for him depending on if he's in shape at the combine.

Amukamara is a stud CB too, and might fly a little under the radar with all of the attention that Peterson is getting. I think his 40 time is going to be disappointing, and he's going to drop to the mid part of the 1st round, but I think he's a top 10 pick.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:18 AM
If you wanted these guys what pick range would be ok in your book

Bowers-- Top 5


Fairley -- Top 5


Dareus-- Top 7


Prince-- No

noted

Kaylore
12-27-2010, 06:58 AM
Trading back might be easier if the new CBA has the top 15 picks' salaries slotted. This eliminates the financial commitment that many teams were scared to dedicate to those picks. There are a lot of teams looking for offensive production. The Cardinals, for example, could make an offer to move up to get the QB they are looking for which would still keep us in range to get someone decent.

I guess it depends on who the new coach of the Bengals is and where they want to go with their team.

Man-Goblin
12-27-2010, 07:11 AM
Trading back might be easier if the new CBA has the top 15 picks' salaries slotted. This eliminates the financial commitment that many teams were scared to dedicate to those picks. There are a lot of teams looking for offensive production. The Cardinals, for example, could make an offer to move up to get the QB they are looking for which would still keep us in range to get someone decent.

I guess it depends on who the new coach of the Bengals is and where they want to go with their team.

This. Top 5 picks are now going to be worth what top 5 picks should be worth. If one of the other 4 possible 1st round QBs' stock jumps (which almost ALWAYS happens), Denver may be in a position to demand a king's ransom for whatever pick they end up with (2-5).

And not much has been made of this, but the Panthers lucked out big time picking #1. Andrew Luck's contract is going to look more like Tim Tebow's contract than Sam Bradford's.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 09:01 AM
Big guys like that get a lot of mid-season hype and then fall like stones in the draft. Dan Williams did it just this past year. Williams was considered as high as an early teens pick even heading into draft day and wound up going 26th. Paea is a fringe first rounder at best right now.

Heyward and Bailey are very similar to Fairley and Dareus, guys who've turned it on in their senior seasons. They just haven't done it quite as dramatically as the later two. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them puts up a monster combine and becomes this year's Tyson Alualu though. Still, they're examples of good value in the second round.

I'm not saying that we need to get Heyward/Bailey and Paea either like those are the only options. I personally love Adrian Clayborn's game but as he gets further from game days and spends more time doing combine drills he's going to slide. He could be a fantastic steal for us in the second round. Maybe PHil Taylor and Jerrell Powe are better choices for NT than Paea. This draft's DL talent looks deepest in the late 1st to early 3rd types. Just so happens we have three picks in that range. So why over pick someone like Fairley or Dareus, impressive prospects in their own right for sure but neither is a complete package, when you could get a transcendent prospect like Peterson?

If Peterson runs like he's supposed to (low 4.4's to high 4.3's in the 40 for example) he's going to be regarded as the best corner prospect since Deon Sanders. If his 40 exceeds expectations (low 4.3's) he's going to be viewed as the best corner prospect in history. He has pedigree on par with Champ Bailey and Charles Woodson. Those are guys you just don't pass on. Especially at a position like corner where its all about a man working on an island and super elite talents have a lower frequency of draft day busts than most other positions.

You sign Peterson, extend Champ, sink the 2nd and 3rd rounds in the DL, and then sign the best FA DL help you can get (Jolly or Jenkins from Green Bay, Franklin from SF, etc.). Thats the recipe for starting to turn around this defense. Not looking for an instant fix DL who's been a mid-tier performer until he blows up the year before going pro.

If the Broncos end up with a top 5 pick they need to make "fixing the defense" priority #2, because priority #1 instantly becomes "making the right pick on our new superstar player".

Basically, your argument is the same one the Broncos have been implementing for years - Go after a star CB (Peterson - another Champ Bailey?) and then invest later picks on the line. That's how you end up with a mediocre line, as the Broncos can attest. The formula should be reversed - Get the best, most disruptive lineman you can get (Fairley), at whatever pick you need to get him, and then use later picks on the secondary. A DE who can disrupt the backfield is worth more than a dozen good corners. Add in Doom and this defense does a 180, just keeping the secondary we have now.

Yesterday, I saw a line unable to get to Matt Schaub and our secondary running all over the place trying to cover as second after second ticked off the clock. It wouldn't matter if the CB's shirt said "Peterson" or "Bailey." He'll still be running around, hamstrung in his play making capabilities because there is no pass rush to support him. Number 1 problem is pass rush. That means use your number one pick on that problem.

From CBS Sports: 12/15/2010 - 2010 WALTER CAMP FOOTBALL FOUNDATION FIRST TEAM ALL-AMERICAN: DL Nick Fairley, Auburn, Jr., leads the SEC with a school record 21 tackles for loss, which is tied for fourth most in the nation, and also ranks second in the league with 10.5 quarterback sacks. The 2010 Lombardi Award winner is fifth on the team with 55 tackles this season, and has also recovered two fumbles, forced one fumble, intercepted a pass and has 21 quarterback hurries. He has helped Auburn rank 11th nationally in rushing defense, allowing just 111.7 yards per game. - Auburn football

If there is one thing the Broncos need more than any other, it is "tackles for loss."

SoDak Bronco
12-27-2010, 09:22 AM
Basically, your argument is the same one the Broncos have been implementing for years - Go after a star CB (Peterson - another Champ Bailey?) and then invest later picks on the line. That's how you end up with a mediocre line, as the Broncos can attest. The formula should be reversed - Get the best, most disruptive lineman you can get (Fairley), at whatever pick you need to get him, and then use later picks on the secondary. A DE who can disrupt the backfield is worth more than a dozen good corners. Add in Doom and this defense does a 180, just keeping the secondary we have now.

Yesterday, I saw a line unable to get to Matt Schaub and our secondary running all over the place trying to cover as second after second ticked off the clock. It wouldn't matter if the CB's shirt said "Peterson" or "Bailey." He'll still be running around, hamstrung in his play making capabilities because there is no pass rush to support him. Number 1 problem is pass rush. That means use your number one pick on that problem.

From CBS Sports: 12/15/2010 - 2010 WALTER CAMP FOOTBALL FOUNDATION FIRST TEAM ALL-AMERICAN: DL Nick Fairley, Auburn, Jr., leads the SEC with a school record 21 tackles for loss, which is tied for fourth most in the nation, and also ranks second in the league with 10.5 quarterback sacks. The 2010 Lombardi Award winner is fifth on the team with 55 tackles this season, and has also recovered two fumbles, forced one fumble, intercepted a pass and has 21 quarterback hurries. He has helped Auburn rank 11th nationally in rushing defense, allowing just 111.7 yards per game. - Auburn football

Fairley has impressed me this season, but I don't know if he's worth the #2 overall pick. I wish Suh would've stayed one more season for NEB and then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree with DREK, get the guy that is going to be elite. Peterson is in that mold, Fairley has more Bust potential then Petereson. We will def. know more once we figure out who the head-coach will be, if we are keeping Champ, what scheme, ect..

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 09:22 AM
Basically, your argument is the same one the Broncos have been implementing for years - Go after a star CB (Peterson - another Champ Bailey?) and then invest later picks on the line. That's how you end up with a mediocre line, as the Broncos can attest. The formula should be reversed - Get the best, most disruptive lineman you can get (Fairley), at whatever pick you need to get him, and then use later picks on the secondary. A DE who can disrupt the backfield is worth more than a dozen good corners. Add in Doom and this defense does a 180, just keeping the secondary we have now.

Yesterday, I saw a line unable to get to Matt Schaub and our secondary running all over the place trying to cover as second after second ticked off the clock. It wouldn't matter if the CB's shirt said "Peterson" or "Bailey." He'll still be running around, hamstrung in his play making capabilities because there is no pass rush to support him. Number 1 problem is pass rush. That means use your number one pick on that problem.

From CBS Sports: 12/15/2010 - 2010 WALTER CAMP FOOTBALL FOUNDATION FIRST TEAM ALL-AMERICAN: DL Nick Fairley, Auburn, Jr., leads the SEC with a school record 21 tackles for loss, which is tied for fourth most in the nation, and also ranks second in the league with 10.5 quarterback sacks. The 2010 Lombardi Award winner is fifth on the team with 55 tackles this season, and has also recovered two fumbles, forced one fumble, intercepted a pass and has 21 quarterback hurries. He has helped Auburn rank 11th nationally in rushing defense, allowing just 111.7 yards per game. - Auburn football

If there is one thing the Broncos need more than any other, it is "tackles for loss."

And the value that Fairley presents is that he generates pressure from within the line and not from the edge. He ties up blocks, which helps Doom.

Just a heads up, there will be people telling you its a waste to use a pick that high on a 3-4 DE. But youre correctly pointing out that its not so much about getting a 3-4 DE as much as its about getting a guy who can generate pressure.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Fairley has impressed me this season, but I don't know if he's worth the #2 overall pick. I wish Suh would've stayed one more season for NEB and then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree with DREK, get the guy that is going to be elite. Peterson is in that mold, Fairley has more Bust potential then Petereson. We will def. know more once we figure out who the head-coach will be, if we are keeping Champ, what scheme, ect..

That kind of rationalization is how you end up never picking defensive linemen. Defensive linemen take a while to get up to speed and so theres more risk but its necessary to invest in them and early. Teams that have good defensive linemen dont let them hit free agency compared to defensive backs. You have to invest in defensive linemen.

Hamrob
12-27-2010, 09:29 AM
we will be picking at #5, and therefore won't have to worry about Peterson. Why? Because we will beat the sorry ass Chargers!

SoDak Bronco
12-27-2010, 09:33 AM
That kind of rationalization is how you end up never picking defensive linemen. Defensive linemen take a while to get up to speed and so theres more risk but its necessary to invest in them and early. Teams that have good defensive linemen dont let them hit free agency compared to defensive backs. You have to invest in defensive linemen.

I just said if Suh were there I would take him no questions asked, I don't think this draft has a Suh or a McCoy. If you are picking at #2 I want the highest rated player. You can find really solid DL if you invest those 2- 2nd's and/or the 3rd.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 09:38 AM
I just said if Suh were there I would take him no questions asked, I don't think this draft has a Suh or a McCoy. If you are picking at #2 I want the highest rated player. You can find really solid DL if you invest those 2- 2nd's and/or the 3rd.

Once again, the rationalization that has led to where things are.

SoDak Bronco
12-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Once again, the rationalization that has led to where things are.

you are clueless

Drek
12-27-2010, 09:48 AM
Basically, your argument is the same one the Broncos have been implementing for years - Go after a star CB (Peterson - another Champ Bailey?) and then invest later picks on the line. That's how you end up with a mediocre line, as the Broncos can attest. The formula should be reversed - Get the best, most disruptive lineman you can get (Fairley), at whatever pick you need to get him, and then use later picks on the secondary. A DE who can disrupt the backfield is worth more than a dozen good corners. Add in Doom and this defense does a 180, just keeping the secondary we have now.

That is what this organization has been doing for years? Drafting BPA and not need?

So that explains why we traded up to get Jarvis Moss instead of any one of the half dozen higher rated, healthier, more proven options in '07?

Or why we took Willie Middlebrooks and Deltha O'Neal in back to back years, despite neither being viewed as first round talent going into their drafts?

That is what lead us to select George Foster and almost immediately slot him into a starting position. His 12 games of college film was all it took for us to identify him as the BPA, not us taking the best tackle at a need position there at all.

Selecting Ashley Lelie wasn't about getting someone in house to replace Smith and McCaffery as they aged, it was simply because Lelie was a better prospect than Ed Reed.

MARCUS ****ING NASH.

Have I made my point well enough yet?

This team has been a hot mess come draft day because we've spent the last 15 years over picking for need with about 90% of our picks. The only light at the end of the tunnel we've seen in that time was when the Goodman's were handing Shanahan legitimate draft boards he couldn't pooch and the last two where McDaniels combined the concept of "need" and "value" to get our targets where they should be selected, not just treating the NFL like your fantasy league where you just let it auto draft because you couldn't be bothered, but you made sure to bump Ryan Matthews to the top of your draft board because you're sure he's this year's breakout rookie.

One single DL pick, especially a guy with the MASSIVE bust potential of Fairley is not going to fix the DL. Drafting quality DL throughout the draft and developing that depth is how you fix the DL.

Getting some quality DL comes secondary to Denver's need to get a difference maker with what will likely be the highest draft selection this franchise has made post-merger.

Pony Boy
12-27-2010, 09:49 AM
Face it we are back to baby steps thanks to McDaniels....... so the goal next year is to beat Rivers and Cassel and to do that you put pressure on them. You are not going to do that with a cover corner. Hopefully Doom will be back and 100% but he needs help.

Every coach in the playoffs starts their interview with this statement "our first goal was to win our division".

Kaylore
12-27-2010, 09:50 AM
Once again, the rationalization that has led to where things are.

Good teams don't reach for need. Taking a defensive line talent in the top three won't make him play like a top 3 player just because you took him there. The Chiefs have nothing to show for their Jackson/Dorsey picks but bloated contracts and few benchings for weight and effort problems. I agree with making a defensive selection, but saying "all D-line" for a draft is what gets you drafts the like '07 with Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder.

mhgaffney
12-27-2010, 09:50 AM
Our first pick should be BPA -- on Defense.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 09:54 AM
I just figure that what the Broncos need more than anything else (and have needed for years) is a pass rush. Which position will win more games, pass rushing DE or CB? The Broncos have one of the best CBs in the league. How many TOs and INTs does he have this season? So, we should add another "best" CB? It comes down to winning games. I also believe that if you draft anybody and they stay on your team for ten years and win games for you, they are worth a top ten pick. The Broncos could go ahead and draft Peterson and he could be a star and in five years we are listening to a discussion on NFLN about how it's a shame Peterson couldn't be on a team with a pass rush where his skills could be better utilized. What matters is winning games. IMO, we lose games because we can't rush the passer. Getting the best CB in football isn't going to fix that.

snowspot66
12-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Once again, the rationalization that has led to where things are.

The idea that we can get away with a FA patchwork has lead to where we are. Nobody is advocating not spending every other pick on the defensive line. Just that the first one may not be worth it at all.

Kaylore
12-27-2010, 09:59 AM
I didn't see Drek's post since I'm at work and it takes me longer to post but that's everything in a nutshell. People keep treating the draft like a grocery store where you can just get what you want where you want it. It's more like buying something on craigslist. You're at the mercy of what's available at the time. Sometimes exactly what you need is available when you pick as was the case with Clady and Royal, but even then Shanahan said that "never happens."

This team needs playmakers across the board, and I'd rather take the sure-fire playmaker even if we already have one at the same position, than reach for need and end up with another Jarvis Moss.

enjolras
12-27-2010, 10:02 AM
Andrew Luck has to actually declare. Harbaugh at Stanford is sure talking confidently that his QB will be back for his senior season.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 10:02 AM
That is what this organization has been doing for years? Drafting BPA and not need?

So that explains why we traded up to get Jarvis Moss instead of any one of the half dozen higher rated, healthier, more proven options in '07?

Or why we took Willie Middlebrooks and Deltha O'Neal in back to back years, despite neither being viewed as first round talent going into their drafts?

That is what lead us to select George Foster and almost immediately slot him into a starting position. His 12 games of college film was all it took for us to identify him as the BPA, not us taking the best tackle at a need position there at all.

Selecting Ashley Lelie wasn't about getting someone in house to replace Smith and McCaffery as they aged, it was simply because Lelie was a better prospect than Ed Reed.

MARCUS ****ING NASH.

Have I made my point well enough yet?

This team has been a hot mess come draft day because we've spent the last 15 years over picking for need with about 90% of our picks. The only light at the end of the tunnel we've seen in that time was when the Goodman's were handing Shanahan legitimate draft boards he couldn't pooch and the last two where McDaniels combined the concept of "need" and "value" to get our targets where they should be selected, not just treating the NFL like your fantasy league where you just let it auto draft because you couldn't be bothered, but you made sure to bump Ryan Matthews to the top of your draft board because you're sure he's this year's breakout rookie.

One single DL pick, especially a guy with the MASSIVE bust potential of Fairley is not going to fix the DL. Drafting quality DL throughout the draft and developing that depth is how you fix the DL.

Getting some quality DL comes secondary to Denver's need to get a difference maker with what will likely be the highest draft selection this franchise has made post-merger.

Sorry. I don't see a "massive" bust potential in Fairley. He has a few issues that can be ironed out by good coaches and vets around him, IMO. I also don't care that he's not a Rhodes scholar. I only want him to knock people down and sack the QB. My argument is that a "difference maker" at the position of CB won't make any difference at all. Getting a player who can sack the QB, will make a huge difference, and will win games. Yeah, we can bring Peterson in and send him to the pro-bowl every year, but is he going to win games for us? Only if he has a pass rush supporting him. We already have Champ to show us that reality.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 10:04 AM
I didn't see Drek's post since I'm at work and it takes me longer to post but that's everything in a nutshell. People keep treating the draft like a grocery store where you can just get what you want where you want it. It's more like buying something on craigslist. You're at the mercy of what's available at the time. Sometimes exactly what you need is available when you pick as was the case with Clady and Royal, but even then Shanahan said that "never happens."

This team needs playmakers across the board, and I'd rather take the sure-fire playmaker even if we already have one at the same position, than reach for need and end up with another Jarvis Moss.

Yeah, reading Drek's posts I suddenly don't hear about how Fairley is the meanest, ass-kickingest pass rusher in the SEC. Suddenly, he's a massive bust. ???

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Good teams don't reach for need. Taking a defensive line talent in the top three won't make him play like a top 3 player just because you took him there. The Chiefs have nothing to show for their Jackson/Dorsey picks but bloated contracts and few benchings for weight and effort problems. I agree with making a defensive selection, but saying "all D-line" for a draft is what gets you drafts the like '07 with Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder.

Fairley is rated in the top 5.

Drek
12-27-2010, 10:09 AM
Face it we are back to baby steps thanks to McDaniels....... so the goal next year is to beat Rivers and Cassel and to do that you put pressure on them. You are not going to do that with a cover corner. Hopefully Doom will be back and 100% but he needs help.

Every coach in the playoffs starts their interview with this statement "our first goal was to win our division".

And what do you do when Fairley is a one year collegiate wonder who busts out in the NFL? Say "oh well, we really needed DL so its ok that we're paying this scrub $8M a year to not step on the football field" while Peterson is destroying passing games as an elite corner in the NFL?

I just figure that what the Broncos need more than anything else (and have needed for years) is a pass rush. Which position will win more games, pass rushing DE or CB? The Broncos have one of the best CBs in the league. How many TOs and INTs does he have this season? So, we should add another "best" CB? It comes down to winning games. I also believe that if you draft anybody and they stay on your team for ten years and win games for you, they are worth a top ten pick. The Broncos could go ahead and draft Peterson and he could be a star and in five years we are listening to a discussion on NFLN about how it's a shame Peterson couldn't be on a team with a pass rush where his skills could be better utilized. What matters is winning games. IMO, we lose games because we can't rush the passer. Getting the best CB in football isn't going to fix that.

A great DL doesn't win you many games either if it isn't backed up with a good secondary.

Last time I check the Texans have a pretty solid front seven the last several years with Mario Williams, Amobi Okoye, Brian Cushing, DeMeco Ryans, etc.. But they haven't been an elite defense. Why is that?

Oh yeah. Because their corners are ****.

You say focus entirely on the DL? Well what do we do if Champ doesn't come back? If Cox goes to jail? Start Nate Jones opposite Goodman? Wow thats exciting!

You want a good DL? Then be serious about drafting a good DL and do it by selecting players in the first few rounds in multiple drafts. Just spending a top 5 pick on it isn't going to suddenly fix the DL. In fact if we draft a Tyson Jackson type its going to make things even worse.

Is Patrick Peterson head and shoulders above every other prospect at a need position for the Broncos? I'd say that is indisputable fact. Do we have two early seconds and an early third we can use to address the DL with, even including trading some combination of them to get back into the first if need by? Yes we do.

So why would we take a gamble on someone like Fairley hoping we're that rare team who drafts a one year wonder DL who isn't in fact a stupid, lazy POS working for his big NFL pay day like nearly EVERY other one year wonder DL top 10 pick turns out to be when we could take someone like Peterson and draft real high motor, nose to the grindstone DLs later like Paea, Clayborn, etc.?

Also, your logic of "we've had an elite corner for years and it hasn't won us anything" is inherently flawed. Having one elite DB doesn't get you anything if the other three guys back there with him are ****, like ours have been for years. You put a legit game changer opposite Champ and you might actually see the DBs win some games for you. Or having some quality safety play for that matter. Having a single elite player surrounded by inferior talent is going to produce an overall weak unit. No one is a cure all singular talent in the NFL short of QB, and even that is debatable. You want to fix the defense you do it throughout all three units by adding a young elite corner to team with Champ, a couple solid or better safeties, and a complete depth overhaul of the DL. We can worry about getting a game changer on the DL when we're actually fielding three NFL starting quality DLs. Right now just reaching that mile stone would be an achievement the Broncos haven't performed since the new millennium.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 10:15 AM
The idea that we can get away with a FA patchwork has lead to where we are. Nobody is advocating not spending every other pick on the defensive line. Just that the first one may not be worth it at all.

No, its rationalization. Be certain about that. Fairley is almost universally ranked as a top 5 pick.

Kaylore
12-27-2010, 10:24 AM
No, its rationalization. Be certain about that. Fairley is almost universally ranked as a top 5 pick.

So was Dan Williams this time of year last year. Let's wait and see where fatty is at after the combine. If he's in shape and puts up good numbers then I would be all about Fairley. I'm not arguing for or against any type of player. I'm saying reaching for need is the worst philosophy to take.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 10:24 AM
And what do you do when Fairley is a one year collegiate wonder who busts out in the NFL? Say "oh well, we really needed DL so its ok that we're paying this scrub $8M a year to not step on the football field" while Peterson is destroying passing games as an elite corner in the NFL?



A great DL doesn't win you many games either if it isn't backed up with a good secondary.

Last time I check the Texans have a pretty solid front seven the last several years with Mario Williams, Amobi Okoye, Brian Cushing, DeMeco Ryans, etc.. But they haven't been an elite defense. Why is that?

Oh yeah. Because their corners are ****.

You say focus entirely on the DL? Well what do we do if Champ doesn't come back? If Cox goes to jail? Start Nate Jones opposite Goodman? Wow thats exciting!

You want a good DL? Then be serious about drafting a good DL and do it by selecting players in the first few rounds in multiple drafts. Just spending a top 5 pick on it isn't going to suddenly fix the DL. In fact if we draft a Tyson Jackson type its going to make things even worse.

Is Patrick Peterson head and shoulders above every other prospect at a need position for the Broncos? I'd say that is indisputable fact. Do we have two seconds and a third we can use to address the DL with, even including trading some combination of them to get back into the first if need by? Yes we do.

So why would we take a gamble on someone like Fairley hoping we're that rare team who drafts a one year wonder DL who isn't in fact a stupid, lazy POS working for his big NFL pay day like nearly EVERY other one year wonder DL top 10 pick turns out to be when we could take someone like Peterson and draft real high motor, nose to the grindstone DLs later like Paea, Clayborn, etc.?

The Texans secondary is just young. That was their planning mistake. By the time the draft rolls around, Clayborn, Paea etc will be rolling up into the mid-first (like the good, big guys always do) and we'll be left shuffling around in the leftovers (like Cameron Heyward) where the bust potential goes up exponentially and our line will continue to be mediocre. Every player at every position on the board has bust potential, although I agree that Fairley's is certainly higher than Peterson's. But some of this is just attitude. Fairley is a wild man and Peterson is a good citizen. That doesn't make Peterson necessarily the better pick.

But I don't get the logic. By the time you get to the second and third rounds, the chances of finding a starter at any position diminish. Where we need a star is on the Dline. I understand the BPA vs need argument very well, but if this season has proved anything, it proves that the state of the Dline on the Broncos has reached disaster levels. It's not going to be fixed by patching in a couple of later round picks here and there. We need a star on the Dline to build around, not another pro-bowl CB.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 10:25 AM
So was Dan Williams this time of year last year. Let's wait and see where fatty is at after the combine. If he's in shape and puts up good numbers then I would be all about Fairley. I'm not arguing for or against any type of player. I'm saying reaching for need is the worst philosophy to take.

My argument is that the need is so great now that it can no longer be ignored. If the ship is going down, plug the biggest hole first.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 10:26 AM
So was Dan Williams this time of year last year. Let's wait and see where fatty is at after the combine. If he's in shape and puts up good numbers then I would be all about Fairley. I'm not arguing for or against any type of player. I'm saying reaching for need is the worst philosophy to take.

No he wasnt. Not only that but Dan Williams didnt generate the pressure that Fairley does. Rohiirim is giving very sound reasoning for why the selection should be Fairly. He generates pressure and not from the edge. This helps out Doom, who Denver is paying big money to and it helps everyone else. As good as Peterson might be, he cant cover for 4 seconds.

Finger Roll
12-27-2010, 10:28 AM
we will be picking at #5, and therefore won't have to worry about Peterson. Why? Because we will beat the sorry ass Chargers!

Even if the Broncos are picking 5th Peterson will still be left on the board imo.
My mock if we pick 5th
1. Carolina: Luck. Bowers if Luck doesn't come out
2. Bengals: Bowers, . Green if luck doesn't come out
3. Bills: Mallett, Newton, Fairley or Quinn
4. Arizona or San fran. Mallett or newton
5. Denver Peterson, Fairley

snowspot66
12-27-2010, 10:29 AM
No, its rationalization. Be certain about that. Fairley is almost universally ranked as a top 5 pick.

No rationalization at all. I want a sure fire all pro potential Hall of Fame player on this defense with that first pick regardless of position. Is there a Suh in this draft?

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 10:31 AM
No rationalization at all. I want a sure fire all pro potential Hall of Fame player on this defense with that first pick regardless of position. Is there a Suh in this draft?

No, its rationalization. Defensive linemen often have more question marks than other positions. And so your comment is really rationalization cloaked in a comment about wanting a sure thing.

snowspot66
12-27-2010, 10:35 AM
No, its rationalization. Defensive linemen often have more question marks than other positions. And so your comment is really rationalization cloaked in a comment about wanting a sure thing.

Yeah I want a sure thing. This defense needs talent regardless of position. So a defensive lineman is top five. Is he worthy of that top five? Or is he just the best of the bunch? When they are just the best of the bunch you get guys like the Chiefs got.

We can still draft three defensive lineman with our two seconds and a third or we can trade up and still get a first round guy. You get good players not needed players. Needed players got us Moss and Crowder in 2007.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 10:40 AM
Yeah I want a sure thing. This defense needs talent regardless of position. So a defensive lineman is top five. Is he worthy of that top five? Or is he just the best of the bunch? When they are just the best of the bunch you get guys like the Chiefs got.

We can still draft three defensive lineman with our two seconds and a third or we can trade up and still get a first round guy. You get good players not needed players. Needed players got us Moss and Crowder in 2007.

Quite honestly, Fairley has been just as disruptive as Suh was last year. Im not saying he's equal because more goes into it. For example, I remember hearing about how good Suh was with his hands. Fairley may not be as well rounded as Suh was but the guy has been massively disruptive. More than Dorsey and far more than the other DL that KC took. Its not even close.

In the first half of the Alabama game, Auburn had a lot of their starting DL suspended and Fairley still was disruptive. His sack, strip, and fumble recovery was the turning point of that game.

Denver needs people like that, who can generate a push without it coming exclusively from edge rushers.

NFLBRONCO
12-27-2010, 10:43 AM
Everybody has alot of jr's declaring let's see how many top guys actually declare.

Drek
12-27-2010, 10:57 AM
My argument is that the need is so great now that it can no longer be ignored. If the ship is going down, plug the biggest hole first.

And the plug you're suggesting is a 400 thread count sheet and some duct tape.

Tell you what. Go find an example of someone with Fairley's track record who achieved NFL success. A one year wonder who wasn't even a starter until the year before he jumped to the NFL who turned out to be an elite player.

I can't think of anyone and I've been following the draft for quite some time.

And FYI: big guys tend to slide down as more skill position players impress in workouts. Simple fact is the big guys don't combine up as well and so the further they get from actual games the more their stock slides.

Its why guys like Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton, and Haloti Ngata went in the teens, not the top 10. When teams have convinced themselves they need a top 10 DL they end up taking guys like Jimmy Kennedy, Ryan Simms, and Tyson Jackson.

Go stroll over to the NFL.com draft history website. Sort it by DL only and take a stroll through first round busts. The bust:stud ratio is something on the order of 5:1. Easily the biggest failure position of any in the draft, with a remarkable track record of the first guy taken rarely ever working out. Why exactly would we take the extremely bad odds of any DL cutting it in the NFL and then couple it with the extremely bad odds of a one year wonder like Fairley or Dareus? Do you want the Broncos to draft a bust 2nd overall?

Denver724
12-27-2010, 11:16 AM
Even if the Broncos are picking 5th Peterson will still be left on the board imo.
My mock if we pick 5th
1. Carolina: Luck. Bowers if Luck doesn't come out
2. Bengals: Bowers, . Green if luck doesn't come out
3. Bills: Mallett, Newton, Fairley or Quinn
4. Arizona or San fran. Mallett or newton
5. Denver Peterson, Fairley

We are trading down. Xanders said this morning on the radio that the goal is to stockpile more picks. Let's hope that Newton and Mallet light it up pre-draft and one is available when we pick. That would be great.

oubronco
12-27-2010, 11:19 AM
And what do you do when Fairley is a one year collegiate wonder who busts out in the NFL? Say "oh well, we really needed DL so its ok that we're paying this scrub $8M a year to not step on the football field" while Peterson is destroying passing games as an elite corner in the NFL?



A great DL doesn't win you many games either if it isn't backed up with a good secondary.

Last time I check the Texans have a pretty solid front seven the last several years with Mario Williams, Amobi Okoye, Brian Cushing, DeMeco Ryans, etc.. But they haven't been an elite defense. Why is that?

Oh yeah. Because their corners are ****.

You say focus entirely on the DL? Well what do we do if Champ doesn't come back? If Cox goes to jail? Start Nate Jones opposite Goodman? Wow thats exciting!

You want a good DL? Then be serious about drafting a good DL and do it by selecting players in the first few rounds in multiple drafts. Just spending a top 5 pick on it isn't going to suddenly fix the DL. In fact if we draft a Tyson Jackson type its going to make things even worse.

Is Patrick Peterson head and shoulders above every other prospect at a need position for the Broncos? I'd say that is indisputable fact. Do we have two early seconds and an early third we can use to address the DL with, even including trading some combination of them to get back into the first if need by? Yes we do.

So why would we take a gamble on someone like Fairley hoping we're that rare team who drafts a one year wonder DL who isn't in fact a stupid, lazy POS working for his big NFL pay day like nearly EVERY other one year wonder DL top 10 pick turns out to be when we could take someone like Peterson and draft real high motor, nose to the grindstone DLs later like Paea, Clayborn, etc.?

Also, your logic of "we've had an elite corner for years and it hasn't won us anything" is inherently flawed. Having one elite DB doesn't get you anything if the other three guys back there with him are ****, like ours have been for years. You put a legit game changer opposite Champ and you might actually see the DBs win some games for you. Or having some quality safety play for that matter. Having a single elite player surrounded by inferior talent is going to produce an overall weak unit. No one is a cure all singular talent in the NFL short of QB, and even that is debatable. You want to fix the defense you do it throughout all three units by adding a young elite corner to team with Champ, a couple solid or better safeties, and a complete depth overhaul of the DL. We can worry about getting a game changer on the DL when we're actually fielding three NFL starting quality DLs. Right now just reaching that mile stone would be an achievement the Broncos haven't performed since the new millennium.

I'm with you we need to pick BPA on the defensive side of the ball but if there is an offensive player who will step in and make a difference how do you pass on him just so you can take a defensive player

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 11:19 AM
We are trading down. Xanders said this morning on the radio that the goal is to stockpile more picks. Let's hope that Newton and Mallet light it up pre-draft and one is available when we pick. That would be great.

Thats not necessarily what that means. Denver has a high 2nd also. It would really have suck to lose a great player with a high pick because Xanders wasnt a legit enough GM to stand up to McDaniels stupidity when trading picks. Just because Xanders didnt have a big enough pair, that doesnt mean they should be trading this pick.

Pony Boy
12-27-2010, 11:25 AM
Two different philosophies at work here and I wish there were NFL statistics to show which one works best.

1. Take the best available player on the board regardless of need.

2. Take the best player available that fits your needs.

Myself, I go to the hardware store and buy what I need to fix a leak, I don't go and bring home a chainsaw because it was the best bargain.

broncofan2438
12-27-2010, 11:28 AM
I think if Cox is really going to jail, you have to resign Champ, period. Keep him in Denver and let him retire here.
Draft defense, be done with it

Drek
12-27-2010, 11:37 AM
I'm with you we need to pick BPA on the defensive side of the ball but if there is an offensive player who will step in and make a difference how do you pass on him just so you can take a defensive player

Who's best player at a need position is how you need to draft.

It doesn't have to be your single biggest need, just a spot you can get the guy on the field at.

That probably rules out QB and WR for us because we have Tebow and massive WR depth now. 2nd overall is too early for an RB and any OL who isn't a OT. Now if a tackle comes out that we think is a superior overall prospect than Peterson? Let Harris walk and by all means draft him, put him in at RT to protect Tim Tim's blind side, and have two amazing bookend tackles for his entire career protecting him.

Same with DL. Roll the dice on the riskiest position in the draft if the prospect your'e taking is really the best guy left on the board that you have a job open for.

But that isn't the case this year, in either hypothetical. If Patrick Peterson comes out you could make a very strong argument that he, not Andrew Luck, is the best player in the entire draft.

We're picking high because we have a ton of holes. The way we get back to winning is by making sure we fill holes with high level talent every chance we get. Peterson at corner, hell Peterson at free safety, is your best bet for a long term elite player with the #2 overall pick. Lets actually fill some holes on defense so we can actually be one or two players away as opposed to the half dozen we're lacking right now.

Pony Boy
12-27-2010, 11:40 AM
We definitely need look at a durable "Bad Ass RT" later in the draft to protect the blindside. Anyone got any good ones on the radar?

oubronco
12-27-2010, 11:42 AM
So what do you think of Wisconsin's center he is a massive roadgrader and where do you think he'll go

Drek
12-27-2010, 11:43 AM
Two different philosophies at work here and I wish there were NFL statistics to show which one works best.

1. Take the best available player on the board regardless of need.

2. Take the best player available that fits your needs.

Myself, I go to the hardware store and buy what I need to fix a leak, I don't go and bring home a chainsaw because it was the best bargain.

Wow that is a weak ass straw man argument.

No one drafts strictly BPA regardless of need. Everyone drafts best available based on need. The two different philosophies are actually:

1. take the best player available at a need position, even if it isn't your biggest need.

2. take the best player available at your biggest need position, even if he's not nearly as good as the best player at another, lesser, need.

So to extent this further into your hardware store analogy, it is the equivalent of going to the hardware store needing to fix five things with one or two of them being really big issues.

Under philosophy #1 you grab the sure fire fix for one of the pressing, but not really big issues and get some potential lower value solutions for the big issues.

Under philosophy #2 you grab the most expensive fix for one of the big issues, assuming its going to work even though its not a guarantee by any stretch, and then try to grab cheaper, less reliable solutions for the other holes as well.

With #1 you're pretty damn sure you've at least taken one problem off the check list, maybe more with some luck. With #2 you're hoping for some luck with all of the problems, if not you're back to square one except you're out a bunch of cash.

Likwid Kerruj
12-27-2010, 11:48 AM
The team could really go in any direction.

There are holes to fill everywhere.

Drek
12-27-2010, 11:55 AM
So what do you think of Wisconsin's center he is a massive roadgrader and where do you think he'll go

Konz or Nagy?

Konz looks like a real good prospect but he's not likely to jump as he's just a redshirt sophomore. Nagy's a 5th year senior who missed a ton of playing time when he got hit by a car year before this one. If he's truly healthy he might be a late rounder you could develop into something, but as it stands how he's a big question mark as a OC/OG project.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 12:00 PM
And the plug you're suggesting is a 400 thread count sheet and some duct tape.

Tell you what. Go find an example of someone with Fairley's track record who achieved NFL success. A one year wonder who wasn't even a starter until the year before he jumped to the NFL who turned out to be an elite player.

I can't think of anyone and I've been following the draft for quite some time.

And FYI: big guys tend to slide down as more skill position players impress in workouts. Simple fact is the big guys don't combine up as well and so the further they get from actual games the more their stock slides.

Its why guys like Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton, and Haloti Ngata went in the teens, not the top 10. When teams have convinced themselves they need a top 10 DL they end up taking guys like Jimmy Kennedy, Ryan Simms, and Tyson Jackson.

Go stroll over to the NFL.com draft history website. Sort it by DL only and take a stroll through first round busts. The bust:stud ratio is something on the order of 5:1. Easily the biggest failure position of any in the draft, with a remarkable track record of the first guy taken rarely ever working out. Why exactly would we take the extremely bad odds of any DL cutting it in the NFL and then couple it with the extremely bad odds of a one year wonder like Fairley or Dareus? Do you want the Broncos to draft a bust 2nd overall?

When you talk about Fairley, you sound like a Georgia, or Alabama fan.

I don't see the bust potential on Fairley as extreme as you make it out to be. I saw a guy who was placed all along the line, double and triple teamed, and still got into the backfield and destroyed plays. In fact, Alabama went to the hurry up specifically to try and deal with Fairley. I don't know what you have against Fairley, but he looks to me like a dominating pass rusher. A lot of people must agree, since he won the Lombardi Award over Bowers and everybody else.

As far as big guys sliding down, I was referring to your idea that we could take Peterson and then pick up a lineman in the second. Some of the better linemen might slip down into the teens, but the good ones (Clayborn, Paea) won't be dropping out of the first round. There will be some good DBs available at the top of the second though. I would say the best bet is to reverse your idea: Take Fairley with the first pick and the best CB/S with the high second.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:06 PM
When you talk about Fairley, you sound like a Georgia, or Alabama fan.

I don't see the bust potential on Fairley as extreme as you make it out to be. I saw a guy who was placed all along the line, double and triple teamed, and still got into the backfield and destroyed plays. In fact, Alabama went to the hurry up specifically to try and deal with Fairley. I don't know what you have against Fairley, but he looks to me like a dominating pass rusher. A lot of people must agree, since he won the Lombardi Award over Bowers and everybody else.

As far as big guys sliding down, I was referring to your idea that we could take Peterson and then pick up a lineman in the second. Some of the better linemen might slip down into the teens, but the good ones (Clayborn, Paea) won't be dropping out of the first round. There will be some good DBs available at the top of the second though. I would say the best bet is to reverse your idea: Take Fairley with the first pick and the best CB/S with the high second.

Or in free agency.

Pony Boy
12-27-2010, 12:07 PM
Wow that is a weak ass straw man argument.

No one drafts strictly BPA regardless of need. Everyone drafts best available based on need. The two different philosophies are actually:

Again different philosophies at work here...... So if you are the GM and Andrew Luck was available you would pass or trade the pick? There are several teams that would draft him regardless of need, so your argument is weak.

Another philosophy or straw man argument as you call it is when a HC makes the statement "if I'm going to cook the meal, I want to shop for the groceries"......trust me that will never happen in Denver again.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:09 PM
When you talk about Fairley, you sound like a Georgia, or Alabama fan.

I don't see the bust potential on Fairley as extreme as you make it out to be. I saw a guy who was placed all along the line, double and triple teamed, and still got into the backfield and destroyed plays. In fact, Alabama went to the hurry up specifically to try and deal with Fairley. I don't know what you have against Fairley, but he looks to me like a dominating pass rusher. A lot of people must agree, since he won the Lombardi Award over Bowers and everybody else.

As far as big guys sliding down, I was referring to your idea that we could take Peterson and then pick up a lineman in the second. Some of the better linemen might slip down into the teens, but the good ones (Clayborn, Paea) won't be dropping out of the first round. There will be some good DBs available at the top of the second though. I would say the best bet is to reverse your idea: Take Fairley with the first pick and the best CB/S with the high second.

Regardless of what you think of Fairley as a prospect, if we are sticking with a 3-4 his talents would be wasted here. He'd project as an end in the 3-4, and 3-4 ends are two-gap garbage men whose primary job is to occupy blockers for the linebackers. He is a 4-3, penetrating defensive tackle. Name me a 3-4 end in the league right now who is an elite playmaker? There aren't any. In the last decade, the closest to fitting the bill would be Richard Seymour. A 3-4 lineman is only worth a top 10 pick if he's an elite nose tackle prospect. Unfortunately, there is not a elite nose tackle prospect in this draft.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:12 PM
Regardless of what you think of Fairley as a prospect, if we are sticking with a 3-4 his talents would be wasted here. He'd project as an end in the 3-4, and 3-4 ends are two-gap garbage men whose primary job is to occupy blockers for the linebackers. He is a 4-3, penetrating defensive tackle. Name me a 3-4 end in the league right now who is an elite playmaker? There aren't any. In the last decade, the closest to fitting the bill would be Richard Seymour.

No they wouldnt. His pressure on passing downs alone makes him worth the pick. And there is nothing saying he cant play in a 4-3. Richard Seymore went from a 4-3 in college, to a 3-4 in NE, to a 4-3 in Oakland. Its flawed to assume that because a guy plays in a 4-3 in college that he cant play in a 3-4. Not only that but there are one gapping 3-4s so thats not even correct from that standpoint.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:16 PM
No they wouldnt. His pressure on passing downs alone makes him worth the pick. And there is nothing saying he cant play in a 4-3. Richard Seymore went from a 4-3 in college, to a 3-4 in NE, to a 4-3 in Oakland. Its flawed to assume that because a guy plays in a 4-3 in college that he cant play in a 3-4. Not only that but there are one gapping 3-4s so thats not even correct from that standpoint.

I am not at all saying he can't play end in the 3-4. I am saying it would be a waste of his talent, which is to attack the backfield. He wouldn't be allowed to do that in the 3-4. Again, name me an elite playmaking 3-4 end in the league right now? Seymour is the only guy who comes close to fitting the bill the last decade, and even he didn't have great numbers compared to his elite 4-3 counterparts.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:18 PM
I am not at all saying he can't play end in the 3-4. I am saying it would be a waste of his talent, which is to attack the backfield. He wouldn't be allowed to do that in the 3-4. Again, name me an elite playmaking 3-4 end in the league right now? Seymour is the only guy who comes close to fitting the bill the last decade, and even he didn't have great numbers compared to his elite 4-3 counterparts.

Unless youre saying he cant do it, naming another one doesnt matter.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Regardless of what you think of Fairley as a prospect, if we are sticking with a 3-4 his talents would be wasted here. He'd project as an end in the 3-4, and 3-4 ends are two-gap garbage men whose primary job is to occupy blockers for the linebackers. He is a 4-3, penetrating defensive tackle. Name me a 3-4 end in the league right now who is an elite playmaker? There aren't any. In the last decade, the closest to fitting the bill would be Richard Seymour.

Football isn't math. It's not like there is only one numerical combination that fits. If you watch some Auburn games you see that Fairley was placed all over that line. Basically, he lined up at the weak point. I think football has changed quite a bit from the days when you were completely locked into the roles dictated by your scheme. In fact, some QBs are getting so good at reading defenses it's probably the natural evolution for defenses to get more flexible in their schemes. To say he would be "wasted" is vastly overstating the case. He could still rush while covering his gaps, if he's good enough, which I think he is. He led the SEC in tackles for loss. The guy is a weapon. I figure it would be up to a good DC to figure out how best to use him. The key is, we have got to be able to rush the QB or we are ****ed.

I don't know how many more Sundays I can take watching the lousiest QBs in football having all day to take apart the Broncos secondary.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Unless youre saying he cant do it, naming another one doesnt matter.

I think he'd have a chance to be productive in a 3-4 relative to what the expectations are at that position, but not a star like he could potentially be in the 4-3. That's why I'm asking you to name me a 3-4 end currently playing in the NFL who fits the bill as an elite playmaker. It's totally relevant, because if there are literally none, or even only a couple, it suggests that it would be unlikely for Fairley to break the mold. The reason there aren't any big time play-makers at 3-4 end is simply because that is not the function/design of the position.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:29 PM
Football isn't math. It's not like there is only one numerical combination that fits. If you watch some Auburn games you see that Fairley was placed all over that line. Basically, he lined up at the weak point. I think football has changed quite a bit from the days when you were completely locked into the roles dictated by your scheme. In fact, some QBs are getting so good at reading defenses it's probably the natural evolution for defenses to get more flexible in their schemes. To say he would be "wasted" is vastly overstating the case. He could still rush while covering his gaps, if he's good enough, which I think he is. He led the SEC in tackles for loss. The guy is a weapon. I figure it would be up to a good DC to figure out how best to use him. The key is, we have got to be able to rush the QB or we are ****ed.

I don't know how many more Sundays I can take watching the lousiest QBs in football having all day to take apart the Broncos secondary.

Again...can you name an elite, playmaking 3-4 defensive end currently playing in the NFL? Fairley "playing all over the line" doesn't address anything because that was within a 4-3 system that best utilizes his skill set. He'd be wasted as 3-4 end because he'd be relegated to garbage-man status. That's just the function of the position. If we switch to the 4-3, then he'd make a fine selection. If you want to put QBs on their butt, then the guy you want to look at is Bowers. You can project him to OLB linebacker in the 3-4. Pressure in the 3-4 come from the LBs, not the DL. The DL helps set up plays by occupying blockers and creating openings for the LBs. Fairley is not that type of lineman.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:33 PM
Again...can you name an elite, playmaking 3-4 defensive end currently playing in the NFL? Fairley "playing all over the line" doesn't address anything because that was within a 4-3 system that best utilizes his skill set. He'd be wasted as 3-4 end because he'd be relegated to garbage-man status. That's just the function of the position. If we switch to the 4-3, then he'd make a fine selection. If you want to put QBs on their butt, then the guy you want to look at is Bowers. You can project him to OLB linebacker in the 3-4. Pressure in the 3-4 come from the LBs, not the DL. The DL helps set up plays by occupying blockers and creating openings for the LBs. Fairley is not that type of lineman.

He wouldnt be wasted. Getting pressure is extremely important. And if he helps Doom get pressure, he's definitely not wasted since Denver is paying a lot of money to Doom. But the bigger issue is finding guys who can get pressure.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:41 PM
He wouldnt be wasted. Getting pressure is extremely important. And if he helps Doom get pressure, he's definitely not wasted since Denver is paying a lot of money to Doom. But the bigger issue is finding guys who can get pressure.

I agree we need to get pressue. But you have to look how guys would function within the system we run as well. If we stick with the 3-4, Fairley talents are wasted. He's not going to make a ton of plays because the 3-4 system doesn't give those opportunities to his position. Unless, of course, you can name me a 3-4 end who proves otherwise? Can you? If you can't, why would Fairley be any different? It doesn't have anything to do with Fairley even...it's just the nature of the 3-4. Unless we bring in an innovative defensive coach who has invented a scheme that allows 3-4 lineman to rush up the field and make plays, I don't think a guy like Fairley is worth a top 10 pick for us. Of course, if we go 4-3, then he's back in play. If you want a push-rusher first and foremost, then Bowers is the guy in the top 10 who can bring that and who could play in the 3-4.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:45 PM
I agree we need to get pressue. But you have to look how guys would function within the system we run as well. If we stick with the 3-4, Fairley talents are wasted. He's not going to make a ton of plays because the 3-4 system doesn't give those opportunities to his position. Unless, of course, you can name me a 3-4 end who proves otherwise? Can you? If you can't, why would Fairley be any different? It doesn't have anything to do with Fairley even...it's just the nature of the 3-4. Unless we bring in an innovative defensive coach who has invented a scheme that allows 3-4 lineman to rush up the field and make plays, I don't think a guy like Fairley is worth a top 10 pick for us. Of course, if we go 4-3, then he's back in play. If you want a push-rusher first and foremost, then Bowers is the guy in the top 10 who can bring that and who could play in the 3-4.

No, its like Rohiirim said, if you have a competent DC, it would be on him to use him. If Denver drafts Fairley and he doesnt get pressure but Doom is because Fairley's tying up blockers, its worth it. And just because others dont get pressures through double teams, that doesnt mean he cant.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:50 PM
No, its like Rohiirim said, if you have a competent DC, it would be on him to use him. If Denver drafts Fairley and he doesnt get pressure but Doom is because Fairley's tying up blockers, its worth it. And just because others dont get pressures through double teams, that doesnt mean he cant.

It's obvious at this point you can't think of a single 3-4 defensive end who fuctions as an elite playmaker. There's probably a reason for that. I doubt all of the 3-4 teams have incompetent defensive cooridnators.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 12:50 PM
Again...can you name an elite, playmaking 3-4 defensive end currently playing in the NFL? Fairley "playing all over the line" doesn't address anything because that was within a 4-3 system that best utilizes his skill set. He'd be wasted as 3-4 end because he'd be relegated to garbage-man status. That's just the function of the position. If we switch to the 4-3, then he'd make a fine selection. If you want to put QBs on their butt, then the guy you want to look at is Bowers. You can project him to OLB linebacker in the 3-4. Pressure in the 3-4 come from the LBs, not the DL. The DL helps set up plays by occupying blockers and creating openings for the LBs. Fairley is not that type of lineman.

If all we were playing is a strict 3-4 line, maybe I would agree. The Jets are playing out of six different fronts and using a stock 3-4 lineup about 10% of the time. I think most teams are heading in that direction, in which case a disruptive player like Fairley would be an advantage. He would be used as one in a combination of pass rushers, not the sole guy. Don't forget Doom. What it would mean is that you could switch lines according to the situation and always have the presence of a dominating rusher, Doom or Fairley, in the lineup, and on the field, or in some instances (say, third and long) both.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 12:52 PM
It's obvious at this point you can't think of a single 3-4 defensive end who fuctions as an elite playmaker. There's probably a reason for that. I doubt all of the 3-4 teams have incompetent defensive cooridnators.

I really havent tried because its not really necessary.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:56 PM
If all we were playing is a strict 3-4 line, maybe I would agree. The Jets are playing out of six different fronts and using a stock 3-4 lineup about 10% of the time. I think most teams are heading in that direction, in which case a disruptive player like Fairley would be an advantage. He would be used as one in a combination of pass rushers, not the sole guy. Don't forget Doom. What it would mean is that you could switch lines according to the situation and always have the presence of a dominating rusher, Doom or Fairley, in the lineup, and on the field, or in some instance (say, third and long) both.

If we are running some kind of hybrid defense, then fair enough. I guess we will see what the new regime has in mind. That said, Fairley does scare me a bit. Defensive lineman have a pretty significant bust rate. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not saying that should preclude us from selecting one. But seriously...how many folks predicted that Glenn Dorsey, for one example, would be a nonfactor at this point in his career?

Drek
12-27-2010, 12:57 PM
When you talk about Fairley, you sound like a Georgia, or Alabama fan.

I don't see the bust potential on Fairley as extreme as you make it out to be. I saw a guy who was placed all along the line, double and triple teamed, and still got into the backfield and destroyed plays. In fact, Alabama went to the hurry up specifically to try and deal with Fairley. I don't know what you have against Fairley, but he looks to me like a dominating pass rusher. A lot of people must agree, since he won the Lombardi Award over Bowers and everybody else.

As far as big guys sliding down, I was referring to your idea that we could take Peterson and then pick up a lineman in the second. Some of the better linemen might slip down into the teens, but the good ones (Clayborn, Paea) won't be dropping out of the first round. There will be some good DBs available at the top of the second though. I would say the best bet is to reverse your idea: Take Fairley with the first pick and the best CB/S with the high second.

Guys like Clayborn fall into the second round every single year. They get to the combine where they don't measure "motor" and teams see guys like Cameron Heyward throw up big numbers, then immediately flip the two on their draft board. Happens all the damn time. Even Paea, a guy I really like, has serious slider potential. Right now most consider him a 1st or 2nd tweener. Remember when Ron Brace was supposed to have first round potential? Where did he end up going again?

I don't hate Fairley, I just acknowledge the massive risk he presents as a 2nd overall pick. He's only had one huge year. Going to juco for two years, not starting his first year at Auburn, and then blowing up right before the draft hits all the hallmarks for a big risk selection. Has he dominated this year? Sure as hell has. Do I think he has the potential to be a standout 3-4 DE? Definitely. But he's a big gamble while Patrick Peterson has a much higher ceiling and far less risk involved.

You are advocating a high risk player who doesn't actually offer higher reward, other than addressing what is perceived as our "top need". Our top need is to hit on this draft pick at a position where the young man can make a difference out of the gate. Positional needs are small potatoes compared to that.

BroncoInferno
12-27-2010, 12:59 PM
I really havent tried because its not really necessary.

How is it not relevant? Do you really think Fairley is so good that he will become the ONLY playmaking 3-4 defensive in all of pro football? Like I said, it really doesn't have anything to do with Fairley and everything to do with the role of a 3-4 lineman. There is a reason there aren't any playmakers at the position...specifically, that is not the function of the position. Do you think Fairley is a Laurence Taylor type who is going to redefine how the 3-4 defensive end is utilized?

elsid13
12-27-2010, 01:03 PM
If we are running some kind of hybrid defense, then fair enough. I guess we will see what the new regime has in mind. That said, Fairley does scare me a bit. Defensive lineman have a pretty significant bust rate. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not saying that should preclude us from selecting one. But seriously...how many folks predicted that Glenn Dorsey, for one example, would be a nonfactor at this point in his career?

Glenn Dorsey is a perfect example of UT that been forced to played DE in 3/4. Dorsey was far more disruptive coming out of LSU with a multi-year track record vs Fairley. If Denver stay with a base 3/4 then pick Peterson, and pick up the DE/NT in the 2nd. This is deep draft for QB, DE and OLD.

vercingetorix
12-27-2010, 01:11 PM
How is it not relevant? Do you really think Fairley is so good that he will become the ONLY playmaking 3-4 defensive in all of pro football? Like I said, it really doesn't have anything to do with Fairley and everything to do with the role of a 3-4 lineman. There is a reason there aren't any playmakers at the position...specifically, that is not the function of the position. Do you think Fairley is a Laurence Taylor type who is going to redefine how the 3-4 defensive end is utilized?

If you draft a 3-4 defensive lineman with the idea that he needs to just two gap, then you wont see that many 3-4 DEs taken in the first. And thats actually probably a lot of 3-4 DEs. But if you get a guy at the top of the draft because he provides another source of pressure, I dont see how its relevant comparing to a bunch of guys who were acquired to two gap almost exclusively.

Rohirrim
12-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Guys like Clayborn fall into the second round every single year. They get to the combine where they don't measure "motor" and teams see guys like Cameron Heyward throw up big numbers, then immediately flip the two on their draft board. Happens all the damn time. Even Paea, a guy I really like, has serious slider potential. Right now most consider him a 1st or 2nd tweener. Remember when Ron Brace was supposed to have first round potential? Where did he end up going again?

I don't hate Fairley, I just acknowledge the massive risk he presents as a 2nd overall pick. He's only had one huge year. Going to juco for two years, not starting his first year at Auburn, and then blowing up right before the draft hits all the hallmarks for a big risk selection. Has he dominated this year? Sure as hell has. Do I think he has the potential to be a standout 3-4 DE? Definitely. But he's a big gamble while Patrick Peterson has a much higher ceiling and far less risk involved.

You are advocating a high risk player who doesn't actually offer higher reward, other than addressing what is perceived as our "top need". Our top need is to hit on this draft pick at a position where the young man can make a difference out of the gate. Positional needs are small potatoes compared to that.

I don't think Fairley suddenly got good because he wants a payday. There's nothing nefarious about his character that I can see. It's because Tracy Rocker showed up as defensive line coach (who, BTW, wouldn't be such a bad pick up for the Broncos ;)) and coached Fairley up into the player you see now. And as far as the cheap shot on the Georgia QB. That was after Georgia's coaches put out a chop block on Fairley to try and take him out of the game. Payback is a mofo.

~Crash~
12-27-2010, 01:23 PM
To the Guys that think we are running only the 3-4 that is just not true. To not run all forms of D would be silly ! The more a team can do the better off it will be .

~Crash~
12-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Being stuck into one way is not the way to go .

Hamrob
12-27-2010, 01:50 PM
Here's a great draft site. Looks like they have us going mostly defense.

http://www.drafttek.com/default.asp

If we could find a way to get Fairley, Jones and Paea...I'd be very happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7gW9m4iY98&NR=1

snowspot66
12-27-2010, 01:55 PM
Being stuck into one way is not the way to go .

How about we get to average at one way and then start worrying about the other ways.

Hamrob
12-27-2010, 01:56 PM
Would we consider taking this kid in the 2nd...if he's still there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dx-_PUqUZI

footstepsfrom#27
12-27-2010, 02:02 PM
Face it we are back to baby steps thanks to McDaniels....... so the goal next year is to beat Rivers and Cassel and to do that you put pressure on them. You are not going to do that with a cover corner. Hopefully Doom will be back and 100% but he needs help.

Every coach in the playoffs starts their interview with this statement "our first goal was to win our division".
I'll go along with building a team designed to beat your division rivals. That works elsewhere besides the line...KC and San Diego both have big receiver corps and our CB's do not match up well, especially if we lose Chamnp and/or Cox as well. Peterson would go a long way towards solving this matchup problem at least.

Drek
12-27-2010, 02:06 PM
I don't think Fairley suddenly got good because he wants a payday. There's nothing nefarious about his character that I can see. It's because Tracy Rocker showed up as defensive line coach (who, BTW, wouldn't be such a bad pick up for the Broncos ;)) and coached Fairley up into the player you see now. And as far as the cheap shot on the Georgia QB. That was after Georgia's coaches put out a chop block on Fairley to try and take him out of the game. Payback is a mofo.

No one ever thinks one year wonders are conducting some nefarious plot. Hell, I doubt any of them ever actually think it.

It goes back to the biggest X factor in the NFL draft though. How is this guy going to respond when he gets paid?

I'm assuming Fairley isn't actually mentally retarded. So working under that assumption I wonder why someone with his talent was unable to meet the admission requirements for any D-1 school to take him. I also wonder what suddenly gave him the motor to be a Lombardi award winner as a redshirt junior. Where did this new motivation come from?

There have been a lot of prospects, a fair share at the DL positions, who have had similar one year bursts, gotten drafted highly, and then fade into obscurity once they've been paid.

I'm not even saying we should just rule Fairley out. I'm just saying that if we're picking #2 we'd be absolutely foolish to pass on a safer pick with a higher ceiling at a need position just because its a lesser need. Fairley has fantastic upside and if Peterson doesn't come out but Fairley does then risks and all he's probably the best guy for us to roll with.

In an ideal world we can swing a trade out of the #2 spot, say for Cam Newton if he comes out early, and find ourselves sitting at say 5 or 6. If that happened and Peterson and Fairley was still on the board it wouldn't change my choice, Peterson any day of the week. But if trading down meant missing out of Peterson and settling for Fairley I'd trade down 100% of the time.

I don't agree with the argument that 3-4 DLs can't be impact players. Haloti Ngata is a serious pass rush threat. New England effectively used Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, and Vince Wilfork to generate a powerful three man pass rush that let them drop everyone else into coverage if they felt so inclined. A lot of 3-4 DEs can be a key part of a team's pass rush. I even think Fairley looks like a very good candidate for just such a role.

But he's just not Patrick Peterson, a corner who is head and shoulders above all his recent peers. Not so long ago Al Davis passed on Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson to take JaMarcus Russell. I view Patrick Peterson as an equivalent talent to Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson, just as a corner. You don't pass on that kind of player if you have a spot for him to start at, and we do.

Pony Boy
12-27-2010, 02:16 PM
I'll go along with building a team designed to beat your division rivals. That works elsewhere besides the line...KC and San Diego both have big receiver corps and our CB's do not match up well, especially if we lose Chamnp and/or Cox as well. Peterson would go a long way towards solving this matchup problem at least.

I wouldn't have a problem with Peterson, he would be a great addition to the team but we would still be yelling "come on get him" during the entire game.

SpringStein
12-28-2010, 10:01 PM
Going into the final weekend:

1. Carolina Panthers 2-13 .575
2. Denver Broncos 4-11 .508
3. Cincinnati Bengals 4-11 .579
4. Buffalo Bills 4-11 .583
5. Arizona Cardinals 5-10 .458
6. San Francisco 49ers 5-10 .492
7. Dallas Cowboys 5-10 .521
8. Houston Texans 5-10 .525
9. Detroit Lions 5-10 .550
10 Cleveland Browns 5-10 .575

vercingetorix
12-28-2010, 10:12 PM
No one ever thinks one year wonders are conducting some nefarious plot. Hell, I doubt any of them ever actually think it.

It goes back to the biggest X factor in the NFL draft though. How is this guy going to respond when he gets paid?

I'm assuming Fairley isn't actually mentally retarded. So working under that assumption I wonder why someone with his talent was unable to meet the admission requirements for any D-1 school to take him. I also wonder what suddenly gave him the motor to be a Lombardi award winner as a redshirt junior. Where did this new motivation come from?

There have been a lot of prospects, a fair share at the DL positions, who have had similar one year bursts, gotten drafted highly, and then fade into obscurity once they've been paid.

I'm not even saying we should just rule Fairley out. I'm just saying that if we're picking #2 we'd be absolutely foolish to pass on a safer pick with a higher ceiling at a need position just because its a lesser need. Fairley has fantastic upside and if Peterson doesn't come out but Fairley does then risks and all he's probably the best guy for us to roll with.

In an ideal world we can swing a trade out of the #2 spot, say for Cam Newton if he comes out early, and find ourselves sitting at say 5 or 6. If that happened and Peterson and Fairley was still on the board it wouldn't change my choice, Peterson any day of the week. But if trading down meant missing out of Peterson and settling for Fairley I'd trade down 100% of the time.

I don't agree with the argument that 3-4 DLs can't be impact players. Haloti Ngata is a serious pass rush threat. New England effectively used Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, and Vince Wilfork to generate a powerful three man pass rush that let them drop everyone else into coverage if they felt so inclined. A lot of 3-4 DEs can be a key part of a team's pass rush. I even think Fairley looks like a very good candidate for just such a role.

But he's just not Patrick Peterson, a corner who is head and shoulders above all his recent peers. Not so long ago Al Davis passed on Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson to take JaMarcus Russell. I view Patrick Peterson as an equivalent talent to Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson, just as a corner. You don't pass on that kind of player if you have a spot for him to start at, and we do.

Is Fairley really a one year wonder? While at Auburn he had one so-so year and one great year. And he was obviously doing enough at the juco to go play for Auburn.

Boomhauer
12-28-2010, 10:54 PM
1. Carolina 2-13 .575 @ Atl (+)
2. Denver 4-11 .508 vs. SD
3. Cincinnati 4-11 .579 @ Bal (+)
4. Buffalo 4-11 .583 @ NYJ (+)
5. Arizona 5-10 .458 @SF
6. SF 49ers 5-10 .492 vs. AZ
7. Dallas 5-10 .521 @ Phi
8. Houston 5-10 .525 vs. Jax (+)
9. Detroit 5-10 .550 vs. Min
10 Cleveland 5-10 .575 vs. Pit (+)

We'd stay at #2 if we lose, but should slide to 5th with a win. All the more reason to whip SD

BroncoInferno
12-29-2010, 07:05 AM
Is Fairley really a one year wonder? While at Auburn he had one so-so year and one great year. And he was obviously doing enough at the juco to go play for Auburn.

I think his point in bringing up his two years at a JUCO was to question what kind of brains and/or work ethic this guy has. The NCAA minimum qualifications to play Division I football are not terribly strenuous. It's safe to assume he either wasn't a very hard wroker or else essentially brain dead. Now, I grant you, not working in hard in the class room would not necessarily mean he didn't work hard as a football player. In my experience, laziness is not something that just infects one aspect of a person's life. In any case, it's something for the front office to seriously look into when prepping for the draft.

Old Dude
12-29-2010, 07:54 AM
Question for all you draftniks.

If I understand the system, teams with the same W-L records go in reverse order of their opponent's winning percentage. (strength of schedule). So the the team who played the least successful opponents goes first.

But what about the second round? Do they stay in the same order, or do they flip-flop in reverse order, or do they use some other rule?

Reason I'm asking is because I'm still drooling over Miami's 2d round pick. If they lose to New England, they'd finish 7-9 and could be in quite a log jam at that point, depending on how other games turn out. Some of the other potential 7-9 teams have played much weaker schedules ... but if things flip flop in round 2, that could actually move that potential pick up into the mid 40s.

CEH
12-29-2010, 08:03 AM
Question for all you draftniks.

If I understand the system, teams with the same W-L records go in reverse order of their opponent's winning percentage. (strength of schedule). So the the team who played the least successful opponents goes first.

But what about the second round? Do they stay in the same order, or do they flip-flop in reverse order, or do they use some other rule?

Reason I'm asking is because I'm still drooling over Miami's 2d round pick. If they lose to New England, they'd finish 7-9 and could be in quite a log jam at that point, depending on how other games turn out. Some of the other potential 7-9 teams have played much weaker schedules ... but if things flip flop in round 2, that could actually move that potential pick up into the mid 40s.

Teams tied with same record flip flop in future rounds

Old Dude
12-29-2010, 08:06 AM
Nice.

Hercules Rockefeller
12-29-2010, 08:26 AM
Question for all you draftniks.

If I understand the system, teams with the same W-L records go in reverse order of their opponent's winning percentage. (strength of schedule). So the the team who played the least successful opponents goes first.

But what about the second round? Do they stay in the same order, or do they flip-flop in reverse order, or do they use some other rule?

Reason I'm asking is because I'm still drooling over Miami's 2d round pick. If they lose to New England, they'd finish 7-9 and could be in quite a log jam at that point, depending on how other games turn out. Some of the other potential 7-9 teams have played much weaker schedules ... but if things flip flop in round 2, that could actually move that potential pick up into the mid 40s.

Easiest just to use the Broncos as the example.

Denver has the weakest SOS out of the 4-11 teams. They pick first in the 1st round, third in the 2nd round, second in the 3rd round, and then first again in the 4th round and so on.

driver
12-29-2010, 08:40 AM
Here's a great draft site. Looks like they have us going mostly defense.

http://www.drafttek.com/default.asp

If we could find a way to get Fairley, Jones and Paea...I'd be very happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7gW9m4iY98&NR=1

man if we could get those 3 in the top 2 rnd's I wouldn't need the viagra anymore.;D

Hercules Rockefeller
01-02-2011, 08:46 PM
Last one.

The loss keeps them in the #2 spot obviously.

Miami will pick 15th overall no matter who wins tonight. However, tonight's outcome will determine where Denver picks in the 2nd round. If StL wins, Miami will be the only 7-9 team in the league and Denver will pick 47th in the 2nd round. If Seattle wins, StL will also be 7-9 (Seattle will be 7-9 and pick with the playoff teams so they aren't in the discussion). StL would pick 14th due to the weaker SOS, and the picks would rotate between the 7-9 teams, and Denver would pick 46th in the 2nd.

Also, according to both GBN and Schefter, Buffalo now has a weaker SOS than Cincy and has moved up to 3rd. Denver is really in a perfect spot if someone like Locker grades out as Top 5 pick and Luck goes to Carolina. If anyone wants to jump Buffalo for Locker, they have to call the Broncos.

First 3 rounds:
#2
#36
#46 (Seattle win) or #47 (StL win)
#67

epicSocialism4tw
01-02-2011, 08:51 PM
Last one.

The loss keeps them in the #2 spot obviously.

Miami will pick 15th overall no matter who wins tonight. However, tonight's outcome will determine where Denver picks in the 2nd round. If StL wins, Miami will be the only 7-9 team in the league and Denver will pick 47th in the 2nd round. If Seattle wins, StL will also be 7-9 (Seattle will be 7-9 and pick with the playoff teams so they aren't in the discussion). StL would pick 14th due to the weaker SOS, and the picks would rotate between the 7-9 teams, and Denver would pick 46th in the 2nd.

Also, according to both GBN and Schefter, Buffalo now has a weaker SOS than Cincy and has moved up to 3rd. Denver is really in a perfect spot if someone like Locker grades out as Top 5 pick and Luck goes to Carolina. If anyone wants to jump Buffalo for Locker, they have to call the Broncos.

First 3 rounds:
#2
#36
#46 (Seattle win) or #47 (StL win)
#67

Thats a pack of great picks. Thats some serious ammo to begin rebuilding.

Thats the best defensive player in the draft OR a couple of later first rounders, a spot to catch a defensive player who drops, a spot to take a targeted 2nd rounder, and what is essentially a late 2nd with #67.

Bronco Yoda
01-02-2011, 08:59 PM
#2 = an #8 + #12 right?

footstepsfrom#27
01-02-2011, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with Peterson, he would be a great addition to the team but we would still be yelling "come on get him" during the entire game.
What if we could get Peterson as well as Paea or Powe...even BOTH of them? We can if we trade back into the 1st round and maybe even if we don't. In fact we could trade our 3rd plus a 2nd to do so and still have another 2nd available for another defender.

footstepsfrom#27
01-02-2011, 09:08 PM
Last one.

The loss keeps them in the #2 spot obviously.

Miami will pick 15th overall no matter who wins tonight. However, tonight's outcome will determine where Denver picks in the 2nd round. If StL wins, Miami will be the only 7-9 team in the league and Denver will pick 47th in the 2nd round. If Seattle wins, StL will also be 7-9 (Seattle will be 7-9 and pick with the playoff teams so they aren't in the discussion). StL would pick 14th due to the weaker SOS, and the picks would rotate between the 7-9 teams, and Denver would pick 46th in the 2nd.

Also, according to both GBN and Schefter, Buffalo now has a weaker SOS than Cincy and has moved up to 3rd. Denver is really in a perfect spot if someone like Locker grades out as Top 5 pick and Luck goes to Carolina. If anyone wants to jump Buffalo for Locker, they have to call the Broncos.

First 3 rounds:
#2
#36#46 (Seattle win) or #47 (StL win)
#67
I think we're picking higher than #36 in the 2nd. There's only three 4-12 teams so if we have to pick third among them in the 2nd round,that's still the #35 pick...but do we know if we pick last among those three teams in the 2nd round or maybe second? Either way we might have a top notch D-line prospect. What's the latest on where Powe and Paea are expected to go?

Karenin
01-02-2011, 09:13 PM
#2 = an #8 + #12 right?

a) nobody actually uses that draft chart
b) no team is going to have an 8 + 12
c) the broncos wouldn't want to pay an 8 + 12

schaaf
01-02-2011, 09:15 PM
I would love to see Patrick Peterson in a Broncos uniform. He is like an Ed Reed to be.

Hercules Rockefeller
01-02-2011, 09:20 PM
I think we're picking higher than #36 in the 2nd. There's only three 4-12 teams so if we have to pick third among them in the 2nd round,that's still the #35 pick...but do we know if we pick last among those three teams in the 2nd round or maybe second? Either way we might have a top notch D-line prospect. What's the latest on where Powe and Paea are expected to go?

You're forgetting Carolina, and you move 1 spot "forward" each round. Denver's at the top in the 1st, so they move to the end of the line in the 2nd.

#33 NE (from Carolina)
#34 Buf
#35 Cincy
#36 Denver

The Pats have Carolina's 2nd, and Denver's 4th when the Broncos pick first among the 4-12 teams again.

misturanderson
01-02-2011, 09:35 PM
a) nobody actually uses that draft chart
b) no team is going to have an 8 + 12
c) the broncos wouldn't want to pay an 8 + 12

Sure they would. All future drafts are going to have slotted pay scale. High 1st round picks will no longer be huge financial risks that can set back teams that need help.