PDA

View Full Version : Broncos interested in Peterson?


Pages : [1] 2

BroncoSojia
02-10-2011, 02:08 PM
- At this early stage is seems the player that most enamors the Denver Broncos, who own the second pick of the draft, is LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson.

http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=4627


Thoughts?

Requiem
02-10-2011, 02:09 PM
:)

521 1N5
02-10-2011, 02:13 PM
:)

cmhargrove
02-10-2011, 02:13 PM
http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=4627


Thoughts?

Dallas Cowboys, come on down...

BroncoSojia
02-10-2011, 02:13 PM
I wouldn't mind if we took him at #2. We would still have 2 picks in the 2nd to address the front seven and besides, it's not like the D is going to be fixed in one offseason.

We need help everywhere on D and should take the BPA.

NFLBRONCO
02-10-2011, 02:14 PM
squirt

Kaylore
02-10-2011, 02:15 PM
Fox has history of building his defenses around two really good corners. That said, this could be posturing. Even if it's not, things will change after the combine and pro days.

schaaf
02-10-2011, 02:16 PM
I would like it. Cameron Heyward is projected to be falling into the second. I would love if they got him.

cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 02:17 PM
great size speed combo and he is fluid running with the football. Top notch talent from what I read. I watched a ton of highlights of him and one thing that sticks out is his ability to return punts. IMO that is a sure sign of the guy just being a great athlete who also is a great CB.

Would probably be a great pick.

BroncoSojia
02-10-2011, 02:18 PM
Dallas Cowboys, come on down...

So you think Dallas is going trade their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and their 1st next year just to trade up for a CB?


They could just stay at that pick and get Prince from Nebraska if they really want a CB

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2011, 02:20 PM
http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=4627


Thoughts?

Posturing for a trade?

crowebomber
02-10-2011, 02:20 PM
Fox has history of building his defenses around two really good corners. That said, this could be posturing. Even if it's not, things will change after the combine and pro days.

Yep. The combine seems to have the biggest effect on corners and wideouts because of the speed factor. There is always a couple of each who have bad 40 times and they drop. Then there's either a little known corner or receiver who post an amazing time and the Raiders take them in the top ten.

Beantown Bronco
02-10-2011, 02:25 PM
I would like it. Cameron Heyward is projected to be falling into the second. I would love if they got him.

Peterson
Paea
Heyward
+
Signed CBA
+
Deangelo Williams in FA

= Beantown Bronco running naked through the streets of Boston.

I almost wouldn't even care what the rest of the draft or FA brought.

gyldenlove
02-10-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't know, under Shanahan rumors that we liked a 1st round pick meant we were sure not to pick that guy, under Mcdaniels it meant we were definitely picking that guy, what does it mean now?

Baba Booey
02-10-2011, 02:27 PM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/6d/Im_ok_with_this.png

Rohirrim
02-10-2011, 02:29 PM
puke

Anyway, sounds like pure, unsubstantiated speculation.

Chris
02-10-2011, 02:29 PM
Elway has talked about "having to hit on the pick" without changes to the current CBA. Perfect typing can't be ****ed with adam likes to suck a big fat chud of dick and likes dudes he loves child man boys and small penises in his mouth lots of them there are no typos there are no typos we will communicate i am answering back read the text

EDIT: Sorry my coworker came over and I decided to only respond in text... took him two minutes to notice my PERFECT SPELLING. Please excuse the jocular humour I am not a homophobe at all.

Anyways...

Elway has talked about "having to hit on the pick" without changes to the current CBA. Because of the cost of the pick I could see them going for the surest thing.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 02:32 PM
Elway has talked about "having to hit on the pick" without changes to the current CBA. Perfect typing can't be ****ed with adam likes to suck a big fat chud of dick and likes dudes he loves child man boys and small penises in his mouth lots of them there are no typos there are no typos we will communicate i am answering back read the text

EDIT: Sorry my coworker came over and I decided to only respond in text... took him two minutes to notice my PERFECT SPELLING. Please excuse the jocular humour I am not a homophobe at all.

Anyways...

Elway has talked about "having to hit on the pick" without changes to the current CBA. Because of the cost of the pick I could see them going for the surest thing.

speak to text strikes again.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 02:33 PM
Peterson
Paea
Heyward
+
Signed CBA
+
Deangelo Williams in FA

= Beantown Bronco running naked through the streets of Boston.

I almost wouldn't even care what the rest of the draft or FA brought.

I'd be right there with you, though I might cheap out and just run naked through the streets of Steamboat instead.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-10-2011, 02:39 PM
Obviously, this is just speculation, but I'd still much prefer a DL

cmhargrove
02-10-2011, 02:45 PM
So you think Dallas is going trade their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and their 1st next year just to trade up for a CB?


They could just stay at that pick and get Prince from Nebraska if they really want a CB

Did I say a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and a first next year? Nope - you said it.


I Would trade the #2 pick to Dallas for the #9, #41, and a player. Any upgrade to the front seven, or maybe an extra RB like Tashard Choice.

With the #9 pick, take Dareus, then in the second round you have ammo to do whatever you want with the 36, 41, and 46 picks. Move back into the first, or stay put based on who is still on the board.

Gcver2ver3
02-10-2011, 02:48 PM
http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=4627


Thoughts?

crap, so that means we're not drafting him...

OBF1
02-10-2011, 02:49 PM
I am more than okay with Peterson at #2, the more I think about it, most of the highly toughted DL guys are a bit over valued IMO. No one is going to break the bank pick wise to move up to #2 guys, so get that out of your heads.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-10-2011, 02:49 PM
Did I say a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and a first next year? Nope - you said it.


I Would trade the #2 pick to Dallas for the #9, #41, and a player. Any upgrade to the front seven, or maybe an extra RB like Tashard Choice.

With the #9 pick, take Dareus, then in the second round you have ammo to do whatever you want with the 36, 41, and 46 picks. Move back into the first, or stay put based on who is still on the board.

Dareus wont be there at 9

bronco militia
02-10-2011, 02:50 PM
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

you suck elway!

oubronco
02-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Did I say a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and a first next year? Nope - you said it.


I Would trade the #2 pick to Dallas for the #9, #41, and a player. Any upgrade to the front seven, or maybe an extra RB like Tashard Choice.

With the #9 pick, take Dareus, then in the second round you have ammo to do whatever you want with the 36, 41, and 46 picks. Move back into the first, or stay put based on who is still on the board.

If we did this and still got Dareus and 3 2nd's i'd be a happy camper but i don't think Dareus will be there at #9

Jetmeck
02-10-2011, 02:59 PM
What if we don't keep Champ. We should but who knows. Who we have manning the corners ? Better think twice before passing on this guy ?

bronco0608
02-10-2011, 03:03 PM
As much as I want a defensive lineman, as long as we don't take an offensive player, we should be good.

Like someone mentioned earlier, it could be posturing. I sure hope so.

We need defensive line. Defensive line. Defensive line. But if the powers that be want a cornerback with the 2nd overall pick, whatcha gonna do?

We took 5 offensive players in the first three rounds last year. You never know what can happen with this team.

Watch us take AJ Green. HA!

Gcver2ver3
02-10-2011, 03:05 PM
What if we don't keep Champ. We should but who knows. Who we have manning the corners ? Better think twice before passing on this guy ?

IMO whether we retain Champ or not should have any bearing on who we take with the #2 pick...

go with the player that you feel grades the best regardless of position...bpa..

if they believe its peterson so be it...just keep the remaining picks focused on the defense as well...go d-line heavy in rounds two through 6...

Chris
02-10-2011, 03:07 PM
I still want Fairley or Dareus. We've debated this 50 times.

oubronco
02-10-2011, 03:10 PM
I still want Fairley or Dareus. We've debated this 50 times.

Amen Brotha

BroncoSojia
02-10-2011, 03:10 PM
Did I say a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and a first next year? Nope - you said it.


I Would trade the #2 pick to Dallas for the #9, #41, and a player. Any upgrade to the front seven, or maybe an extra RB like Tashard Choice.

With the #9 pick, take Dareus, then in the second round you have ammo to do whatever you want with the 36, 41, and 46 picks. Move back into the first, or stay put based on who is still on the board.

I was going by the draft value chart. Either way it's going to take way more than a 2nd round pick and an average RB to move up to the 2 spot and I don't think Dallas would want to give up that much for a CB, especially when Amukamara could be there when they pick.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-10-2011, 03:15 PM
What if we don't keep Champ. We should but who knows. Who we have manning the corners ? Better think twice before passing on this guy ?

If we dont keep Champ and then draft Peterson as a replacement, i will lead the **** fit.

Bigdawg26
02-10-2011, 04:05 PM
I can live with that! If both of our two of our next 3 picks are D-linemen!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 04:08 PM
If we dont keep Champ and then draft Peterson as a replacement, i will lead the **** fit.

And if we do keep champ and draft Peterson at #2 (which is the smart move for a ton of reasons we've been over and over), what then? Cry in your beer?

SonOfLe-loLang
02-10-2011, 04:15 PM
And if we do keep champ and draft Peterson at #2 (which is the smart move for a ton of reasons we've been over and over), what then? Cry in your beer?

It would be a tad different as it would suggest they feel having a dominant secondary (by doubling down on elite corners) would be the way to rebuild the D. I, for one, do not agree with this, but at least i can understand the vision. To lose your elite corner, only to replace him with another potential elite one (when our defense has been epically horrible) would be repeating a process that clearly has NOT worked.

ColoradoDarin
02-10-2011, 04:21 PM
I keep telling myself, "I will not believe a word of what comes out of any team prior to the draft."

TheReverend
02-10-2011, 04:52 PM
Fantastic news

Lestat
02-10-2011, 05:16 PM
i love it if he's the pick. i'd like it even better if we could trade down and snag some extra picks and still get him. but the dude is a freak and if by some miracle he could be tutored by Champ Bailey that would be awesome.

orange crusher
02-10-2011, 05:29 PM
Fantastic news

News? What news? More like random speculation from another draft site.

mhgaffney
02-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Orange Crusher,

I'd love to meet your avatar.

Aw shucks.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 07:59 PM
http://www.draftinsider.net/blog/?p=4627


Thoughts?

Amen!

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:03 PM
I still want Fairley or Dareus. We've debated this 50 times.And I've won all of them!:yayaya:

listopencil
02-10-2011, 08:20 PM
It would be a tad different as it would suggest they feel having a dominant secondary (by doubling down on elite corners) would be the way to rebuild the D. I, for one, do not agree with this, but at least i can understand the vision. To lose your elite corner, only to replace him with another potential elite one (when our defense has been epically horrible) would be repeating a process that clearly has NOT worked.

The problem is that you really can't relate a decade plus of bad talent acquisition on the D side to the #2 overall pick. This is a unique situation. It would be great if there was a guy worthy of the #2 pick who exactly matched our team's weaknesses. From what I can tell there isn't. It would be great if we could then just trade down to a pick that matches up better. That could very well prove to be problematical. We have to find a trading partner that gives us worthy compensation or it's just as bad as blowing the pick in the first place. If we do get Peterson I won't be angry about it, the guy really does look worthy of the pick. I just hope we go D-Line and ILB after that.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:28 PM
The problem is that you really can't relate a decade plus of bad talent acquisition on the D side to the #2 overall pick. This is a unique situation. It would be great if there was a guy worthy of the #2 pick who exactly matched our team's weaknesses. From what I can tell there isn't. It would be great if we could then just trade down to a pick that matches up better. That could very well prove to be problematical. We have to find a trading partner that gives us worthy compensation or it's just as bad as blowing the pick in the first place. If we do get Peterson I won't be angry about it, the guy really does look worthy of the pick. I just hope we go D-Line and ILB after that.

Don't forget that we've also compounded the poor talent acquisitions with poor coaching, a lack of commitment, and a lack of continuity.

I've argued for Peterson, Ad Nauseum begins I think he's the best defensive prospect in the draft. That's, perhaps, debatable, but I utterly disagree with the idea that you have to take DL first because "that's how you build a defense".

For me you have to land a future starter with the top 3 picks. I don't think the order matters, but the level of talent does.

listopencil
02-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Don't forget that we've also compounded the poor talent acquisitions with poor coaching, a lack of commitment, and a lack of continuity.

I've argued for Peterson, Ad Nauseum begins I think he's the best defensive prospect in the draft. That's, perhaps, debatable, but I utterly disagree with the idea that you have to take DL first because "that's how you build a defense".

For me you have to land a future starter with the top 3 picks. I don't think the order matters, but the level of talent does.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. We need more talent at several positions in our D. As long as we can get substantial upgrades I'll be happy, and it's not like we can magically force the available talent to match up with our draft order.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:35 PM
it's not like we can magically force the available talent to match up with our draft order.

Which is why you go BPA, and don't draft for need like we have for years.

Soul-Bronco
02-10-2011, 08:37 PM
Anyone have any good highlight reels of peterson? all the ones i see on youtube suck

listopencil
02-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Which is why you go BPA, and don't draft for need like we have for years.

I've seen a line here and there, I think it came from Xanders; "Best player available at positions of need". From what I can tell this class is deep on the D-Line and the talent fits our 2nd round nicely.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:42 PM
Anyone have any good highlight reels of peterson? all the ones i see on youtube suck

The best CBs don't provide much footage because the ball doesn't go their direction very often. Most of a CBs best work will be off-camera.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:46 PM
I've seen a line here and there, I think it came from Xanders; "Best player available at positions of need". From what I can tell this class is deep on the D-Line and the talent fits our 2nd round nicely.

Yeah. The thing is, almost every position on defense fits that definition.

Another reason I like Peterson so much is that the DL depth in this draft is epic. There's far less of a drop off between the DTs available in round 2 and Fairley/Darues.

After Peterson and Amukamara, the CB talent drops precipitously.

strafen
02-10-2011, 09:02 PM
Fox has history of building his defenses around two really good corners. That said, this could be posturing. Even if it's not, things will change after the combine and pro days.

For a change, I agree with you ^5
Most draft mocks have us picking Peterson with our # 2 selection.
Eventhough the guy is a great defensive player, in most eyes, he plats a position we don't need the most help at.
For esample, the defensive line is where is at. Yet, I feel peterson will be an immediate impact player that will improve our defense.
We don't have a strong DL that can ease the job of the secondary, so a player like Peterson will somewhat help the DL.

I trust Fox. He's a very sound defensive coach.
The way I look at it is that the stronger we are in the secondary, the better.
Our weakness traditionally has been in our inability to stop the pass.
We have the tendency to do better against the run than against the pass

It's important we'd beef up the secondary as well.
Just about every year we've got to face Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc...

This year we will see: Rivers, Brady, Rodgers, Cutler, Sanchez, Stafford, and whoever, the Vikings, Dolphins, Buffalo, Titans, Bengals and the Raiders will have for a QB in 2011

Our rushing defense was just as bad last year as our passing defense.
So, we can plug help in just about any part of the defense, and it will be a major upgrade...

schaaf
02-10-2011, 09:24 PM
For a change, I agree with you ^5
Most draft mocks have us picking Peterson with our # 2 selection.
Eventhough the guy is a great defensive player, in most eyes, he plats a position we don't need the most help at.
For esample, the defensive line is where is at. Yet, I feel peterson will be an immediate impact player that will improve our defense.
We don't have a strong DL that can ease the job of the secondary, so a player like Peterson will somewhat help the DL.

I trust Fox. He's a very sound defensive coach.
The way I look at it is that the stronger we are in the secondary, the better.
Our weakness traditionally has been in our inability to stop the pass.
We have the tendency to do better against the run than against the pass

It's important we'd beef up the secondary as well.
Just about every year we've got to face Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc...

This year we will see: Rivers, Brady, Rodgers, Cutler, Sanchez, Stafford, and whoever, the Vikings, Dolphins, Buffalo, Titans, Bengals and the Raiders will have for a QB in 2011

Our rushing defense was just as bad last year as our passing defense.
So, we can plug help in just about any part of the defense, and it will be a major upgrade...

Good Post Strafen.

Some could argue that if Cox goes to prison and Bailey isn't resigned that would become the biggest offseason need. I think the D-Line is in better shape than people realize, especially with the comeback of Doom. I feel that Ayers will be a very solid DE also that will excel against the run. Bannan, Thomas, and Williams I feel will benefit from the switch to the 4-3.

My only point about Peterson is that there is really nobody arguing that he won't excel in the NFL. But instead, people are arguing that we need Defensive Line help more. I believe that there will be opportunities with each of our second rounders to draft a Defensive Lineman that in any other year would be a first rounder.

I've heard all the posts that championship teams are built from the line out. But I don't care what team it is, if they are presented the chance to take a CB that they feel could become an all pro they will take it. There are more moves than just the #2 pick that will be made this offseason.

BroncoSojia
02-10-2011, 09:40 PM
Anyone have any good highlight reels of peterson? all the ones i see on youtube suck

This vid is relatively new

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iCj46BMErlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

schaaf
02-10-2011, 09:46 PM
He is a playmaker. We could definitely use him.

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 09:54 PM
DL DL MLB S .................................................. ............................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 09:55 PM
He is a playmaker. We could definitely use him.

yep sure thing Is he able to 10 to 16 sacks a year if so sign me up...

strafen
02-10-2011, 10:12 PM
This vid is relatively new

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iCj46BMErlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Amazing body control, vision and speed...

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 10:13 PM
two years ago we needed DL so how did that draft work ? last year we need DL how did that draft work ? Our biggest need is actually MLB'er then SS But DL is like a black hole . CB we are fine at if there is a pass rush . at some point lets keep the good players we already got and replace players that could not play .

Last two years we got way to into relacing players we already had on the team let's fix the god damn problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 10:16 PM
team is doing it with the players you have on the team. stop the BS! Develop the players we already got.

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 10:21 PM
Bailey has 4 years left in him and that is all you can plan with this type of player . the next contract Peterson will sign in 4 years will be with a rich team. so there is actually more to think about . what will help the Broncos I ask you ?

Bailey and a #2 DE ?

No Bailey~Peterson and no DE?

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 10:31 PM
team is doing it with the players you have on the team. stop the BS! Develop the players we already got.

When you write this stuff, does it actually make sense in your head or do you just aim at being incoherent?

zdoor
02-10-2011, 10:32 PM
I'd be thrilled. He's a stud...

schaaf
02-10-2011, 10:46 PM
yep sure thing Is he able to 10 to 16 sacks a year if so sign me up...

We've got something better. We have a D-End that gets us 17

schaaf
02-10-2011, 10:47 PM
Bailey has 4 years left in him and that is all you can plan with this type of player . the next contract Peterson will sign in 4 years will be with a rich team. so there is actually more to think about . what will help the Broncos I ask you ?

Bailey and a #2 DE ?

No Bailey~Peterson and no DE?

And Defensive End is probably our least worry on the Line.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 11:03 PM
And Defensive End is probably our least worry on the Line.

be vewy quiet...he's hunteen wabbits.

schaaf
02-10-2011, 11:08 PM
be vewy quiet...he's hunteen wabbits.

Haha I'm just hoping he is <15 It would make a lot more sense.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 11:10 PM
Haha I'm just hoping he is <15 It would make a lot more sense.

I've held that hope for more than a few posters here to no avail.

Carmelo15
02-10-2011, 11:22 PM
Nick Fairley and to a lesser extent DaQuan Bowers are both overrated. Fairley is one-dimensional. He isn't even the best player at his position, Marcel Dareus is. Bowers is very good, however two of our top 4 players on defense play his position. The Broncos best player at a position of need is Patrick Peterson no doubt about it. Marcel Dareus is second. If we draft anyone other than those two I will be very disappointed. Corey Liuget is a great player by the way. I actually like him better than Fairley personally.

My ideal scenario:
Trade 46 & 67 for 26
2.) Patrick Peterson
26.) Corey Liuget
36.) Phil Taylor

schaaf
02-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Nick Fairley and to a lesser extent DaQuan Bowers are both overrated. Fairley is one-dimensional. He isn't even the best player at his position, Marcel Dareus is. Bowers is very good, however two of our top 4 players on defense play his position. The Broncos best player at a position of need is Patrick Peterson no doubt about it. Marcel Dareus is second. If we draft anyone other than those two I will be very disappointed. Corey Liuget is a great player by the way. I actually like him better than Fairley personally.

My ideal scenario:
Trade 46 & 67 for 26
2.) Patrick Peterson
26.) Corey Liuget
36.) Phil Taylor


I agree with your post, If Corey Liuget was there that would be a damn good pickup.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 11:37 PM
My ideal scenario:
Trade 46 & 67 for 26
2.) Patrick Peterson
26.) Corey Liuget
36.) Phil Taylor

I'm not down with trading up, and I think Liuget goes earlier than people think.

My ideal:
2-Patrick Peterson
36-Phil Taylor
Orton to Tennessee for #38-Rahim Moore
#46-Martez Wilson
#67-Joseph Barksdale

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 11:44 PM
And Defensive End is probably our least worry on the Line.

yep we got not one 4-3 DE but nice try.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 11:49 PM
yep we got not one 4-3 DE but nice try.

errrrr...whaa?

epicSocialism4tw
02-10-2011, 11:49 PM
I would rather see us draft a DL-man, but I wouldnt complain about Peterson. If they dont pick a DL player in the following two picks? I'll be ticked, as will most Broncos fans. However, if they sign Mebane or another top-tier free agent DL player, I'll be happy. Front 7 must be addressed for real.

KevinJames
02-11-2011, 12:03 AM
Bailey has 4 years left in him and that is all you can plan with this type of player . the next contract Peterson will sign in 4 years will be with a rich team. so there is actually more to think about . what will help the Broncos I ask you ?

Bailey and a #2 DE ?

No Bailey~Peterson and no DE?

umm we have 2 DEs

Elvis Dumervil and Robert Ayers....

KevinJames
02-11-2011, 12:06 AM
yep we got not one 4-3 DE but nice try.

Doom has 26 sacks in a 4-3 defense as a DE.

Robert Ayers natural position was a 4-3 defensive end @ Tennessee.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZVJYQ99Ufe4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I really don't wanna give up on this kind of talent especially when we are in desperate need at other positions.

I would be fine with Patrick Peterson or Fairley/Dareus, but I think I would rather have Peterson who is close to a sure thing we need to hit on this pick.

bronco0608
02-11-2011, 12:58 AM
I'm not down with trading up, and I think Liuget goes earlier than people think.



I always love when posters make idiotic predictions.

ColoradoBuff
02-11-2011, 08:31 AM
I love it! Then take the best DT, DE with both 2nd's and then a LB or Safety in the 3rd. DT Corey Liguet and Drake Nevis should be there with our first 2nd round pick. I would love one of the UNC boys in the 3rd....either ILB Quan Sturdivant or S Deunta Williams.

Rohirrim
02-11-2011, 08:33 AM
Take the highest draft pick in franchise history (at least in my memory) and use it on a CB? blech

ColoradoBuff
02-11-2011, 09:02 AM
I'm not down with trading up, and I think Liuget goes earlier than people think.

My ideal:
2-Patrick Peterson
36-Phil Taylor
Orton to Tennessee for #38-Rahim Moore
#46-Martez Wilson
#67-Joseph Barksdale

I'd love Taylor at 36 if he is there.....if not what about Peterson's teammate Drake Nevis?

Cito Pelon
02-11-2011, 09:42 AM
Someone from the FO should travel to San Diego to watch Cam Newton, that would get some rumors going. If I was Elway, I'd do it just for fun.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 10:07 AM
Doom has 26 sacks in a 4-3 defense as a DE.

Robert Ayers natural position was a 4-3 defensive end @ Tennessee.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZVJYQ99Ufe4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I really don't wanna give up on this kind of talent especially when we are in desperate need at other positions.

I would be fine with Patrick Peterson or Fairley/Dareus, but I think I would rather have Peterson who is close to a sure thing we need to hit on this pick.

Man, that video gets me excited With Ayers as a D-End.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 10:48 AM
I'd love Taylor at 36 if he is there.....if not what about Peterson's teammate Drake Nevis?

I like Drake Nevis as well. and would be happy taking him a little later. I think he'll be a solid rotational DT in the NFL, but I think Phil Taylor has a huge amount of upside and could develop into a dominant interior player.

I think that Fairley/Bowers/Dareus/Liuget are the top tier guys who will have impact from day one.

I think Paea and Taylor are guys who might develop into even better players than the above, but will take some coaching to get there.

Then there is a slew of DL talent like Nevis, Marvin Austin, Mohamed Wilkerson, Jurell Casey who hav some talent and could be anywhere from duds to very good.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Take the highest draft pick in franchise history (at least in my memory) and use it on a CB? blech

That's the obvious, don't actually look at the talent available, take.

Popps
02-11-2011, 11:04 AM
Yea, let's draft Patrick Peterson so our defense can be just as good as it was last year!

http://files.sharenator.com/yay_RE_The_Newest_Sharenator-s311x302-103062.jpg

Popps
02-11-2011, 11:05 AM
Take the highest draft pick in franchise history (at least in my memory) and use it on a CB? blech

Agree. We'd be paying a premium for a 2nd level impact player.

Once again, we had an all-star CB on our D all season long... and our defense got raped.

Taking Peterson would accomplish absolutely nothing.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 11:12 AM
Yea, let's draft Patrick Peterson so our defense can be just as good as it was last year!

http://files.sharenator.com/yay_RE_The_Newest_Sharenator-s311x302-103062.jpg

I would love to hear how you justify that statement

Cito Pelon
02-11-2011, 11:16 AM
You attack an offense with your front 7 on D. You don't attack an offense with CB's.

Rohirrim
02-11-2011, 11:19 AM
That's the obvious, don't actually look at the talent available, take.

No. That's the obvious, don't take the player at #2 who's impact on defense is about 33% of the plays over the guy who's impact is every defensive snap.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 11:20 AM
You attack an offense with your front 7 on D. You don't attack an offense with CB's.

You can dictate just as much of the opposing game plan with a dominant corner as you can with a dominant front seven defender.

A dominant corner also gives you the freedom to play eight and nine in the box and pinch gaps.

A dominant corner also gives you the freedom to blitz (pass or run) an extra player more than the opposing offense can block.

A dominant corner absolutely attacks the offense.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 11:20 AM
You attack an offense with your front 7 on D. You don't attack an offense with CB's.

Once again, If they draft Peterson this will not be the only move that they make on Defense. They will make other moves. There are more decisions to be made than just the #2 pick.

You can look at getting a guy like Mebane in Free agency or Paea or Liuget or Heyward who could all very well be there with our second and any other year would be a first round draft pick.

You have the opinion that if we take Peterson we will completely forget about strengthening our front seven. That is not the case.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 11:20 AM
No. That's the obvious, don't take the player who's impact on defense is about 33% of the plays over the guy who's impact is every defensive snap.

I can't begin to fathom how you arrive at that conclusion...

Bigdawg26
02-11-2011, 11:22 AM
I'm not down with trading up, and I think Liuget goes earlier than people think.

My ideal:
2-Patrick Peterson
36-Phil Taylor
Orton to Tennessee for #38-Rahim Moore
#46-Martez Wilson
#67-Joseph Barksdale

I WOULD LOVE THIS DRAFT!!!!!

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 11:24 AM
Since people ITT seem to be pretty slow, with their shallow volume of understanding and their "Dur, we need front 7, dur", let's look at how Rex Ryan describes it:

“Quite honestly, he’s the best player in football,” Ryan said, in comments distributed by the team. “That is what you saw out there. Hold Reggie Wayne (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1496), who led the league in catches, I think he had 111 catches, to one catch for one yard. That tells you how good Darrelle Revis is. I know he’s probably not going to win the Defensive Player of the Year award, but the impact he has is amazing. We were able to do some coverages during the game where we actually played man-coverage strictly on his side regardless of who the receiver was and roll their coverage away from it. You only do that if you have Darrelle Revis. He’s an amazing once-in-a-life-time player and we took advantage of him.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/10/rex-ryan-darrelle-revis-is-the-best-player-in-the-nfl/

And naturally, like all media interviews, that's only scratching the surface.

bronco militia
02-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Since people ITT seem to be pretty slow, with their shallow volume of understanding and their "Dur, we need front 7, dur", let's look at how Rex Ryan describes it:

“Quite honestly, he’s the best player in football,” Ryan said, in comments distributed by the team. “That is what you saw out there. Hold Reggie Wayne (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1496), who led the league in catches, I think he had 111 catches, to one catch for one yard. That tells you how good Darrelle Revis is. I know he’s probably not going to win the Defensive Player of the Year award, but the impact he has is amazing. We were able to do some coverages during the game where we actually played man-coverage strictly on his side regardless of who the receiver was and roll their coverage away from it. You only do that if you have Darrelle Revis. He’s an amazing once-in-a-life-time player and we took advantage of him.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/10/rex-ryan-darrelle-revis-is-the-best-player-in-the-nfl/

And naturally, like all media interviews, that's only scratching the surface.

why haven't the Broncos been able to do that with Champ?

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Denver needs a Sapp Peppers type DL with this top pick not just another player to add to a poor DL we won't get very far if that's the case.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 11:28 AM
I would love to hear how you justify that statement

Didn't you see. He posted a picture with his take. That replaces actual analysis.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 11:30 AM
Once again, we had an all-star CB on our D all season long... and our defense got raped.
.

How many times are you going to post this moronic take? It's just so stupid I can't stand it.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 11:31 AM
Denver needs a Sapp Peppers type DL with this top pick not just another player to add to a poor DL we won't get very far if that's the case.

That is the thing. If the FO feels that Bowers or Fairley won't become that level of player than you can get a second round pick that will be just as good. If they feel that Bowers and Fairley will be average, Why waste the #2 overall pick on him because the only reason is "you attack the defense with your front 7". If they feel that Peterson could become an all pro. They will take him.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-11-2011, 11:37 AM
Yea, let's draft Patrick Peterson so our defense can be just as good as it was last year!

http://files.sharenator.com/yay_RE_The_Newest_Sharenator-s311x302-103062.jpg

Yea, let's draft someone who has a higher potential to wash out of the league!

Yea, let's look at the short-term, because we're planning to rebuild the entire defense in one off season!

yea!

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 11:37 AM
why haven't the Broncos been able to do that with Champ?

They have.

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 11:37 AM
I'd like to see Denver just draft best TALENT whoever it is. Denver needs major talent on all levels of our D I don't care what order. Not one guy will fix all our problems overnight it will take several right choices to get us better.

listopencil
02-11-2011, 11:38 AM
why haven't the Broncos been able to do that with Champ?

We have on occasion, and he has made some game changing plays. He's also been banged up off and on the last few years.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 11:42 AM
No. That's the obvious, don't take the player at #2 who's impact on defense is about 33% of the plays over the guy who's impact is every defensive snap.

I can post completely irrelevant #'s too.

Any starting CB is going to be on the field for more snaps than any DT. It's simply the nature of the positions.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 11:44 AM
I'd like to see Denver just draft best TALENT whoever it is.

That's exactly why I want Peterson. I think he's a very unique talent, and the best defensive talent entering the draft.

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 11:51 AM
That's exactly why I want Peterson. I think he's a very unique talent, and the best defensive talent entering the draft.

I'm with you 100% I just figure Denver will trade down or gamble on DL hoping they are a stud and not a dud need draft.

bronco0608
02-11-2011, 12:12 PM
That's exactly why I want Peterson. I think he's a very unique talent, and the best defensive talent entering the draft.

No he's not.

listopencil
02-11-2011, 12:14 PM
No he's not.

Yes he is.

bronco militia
02-11-2011, 12:14 PM
I'd argue that our front seven has not been good enough to take advantage of Champs abilities.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 12:20 PM
No he's not.

Good analysis there man.

Cito Pelon
02-11-2011, 12:25 PM
You can dictate just as much of the opposing game plan with a dominant corner as you can with a dominant front seven defender.

A dominant corner also gives you the freedom to play eight and nine in the box and pinch gaps.

A dominant corner also gives you the freedom to blitz (pass or run) an extra player more than the opposing offense can block.

A dominant corner absolutely attacks the offense.

We'll see how it plays out. There's a lot of different ways to assemble a playoff team. It's possible Denver can stand pat with the front 7 with a healthy Elvis and Ayers in a 4-3, keep Champ, add Peterson, DJ at MLB. Seems to me safety is an issue, we'll see. There's no telling what will be the correct combination.

Carmelo15
02-11-2011, 12:29 PM
Denver needs a Sapp Peppers type DL with this top pick not just another player to add to a poor DL we won't get very far if that's the case.

There are no defensive linemen of that caliber in this draft, Fairley and Bowers included. Everyone on this board complains about passing up on Ed Reed. We targeted WR and passed up a greater talent because of it. Now you want to do the same thing with Patrick Peterson? He is the best defensive player in this draft, and arguably the best player period (A.J. Green). Why would you want to pass on that? I said in another thread I think Corey Liuget can be just as good if not better than Fairley. He will not be available at #36, but he will likely go in the bottom third of the first round so we could easily move up to get him. There are no other corners that come close to Peterson besides Amukamara and possibly Jimmy Smith but both of those guys will be top 15 picks themselves.

I'm not addressing you directly but everyone else who's against taking Peterson as well. This kid will worst case scenario be a very good safety a la Antrel Rolle IMO. That's worst case. He has the physical and playmaking ability of Ed Reed. Best case scenario he could be our next Champ.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 12:35 PM
No he's not.

Nice take Skippy. You know how I spot an ignoramus? They think of their opinion as fact? You just accomplished that.

I stated an opinion. You're free to disagree and state yours, but I know from past dealings that you aren't capable of backing your opinion because you can't keep the ignoramus in you at bay long enough get out a coherent argument.

Such is the quote above.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 12:40 PM
I'd argue that our front seven has not been good enough to take advantage of Champs abilities.

No one on the defense has been good enough to take advantage of Champ's abilities. Particularly the coaching staff.

Coyer was the only DC who used Champ as a focal point of the defense, and it's no coincidence that we had our best defenses over the last decade in doing that.

Champ was among the best defenders in the league from 2003-2005.

Gcver2ver3
02-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Many experts are claiming this is a very deep draft for dlinemen...

If that's the case, taking the best DB does makes some sense, and using remaining picks on Dlinemen that could arguably be as good as some of the slightly higher graded ones...

That's not the worst logic in the world...

Cito Pelon
02-11-2011, 12:44 PM
I'd like to see Denver just draft best TALENT whoever it is. Denver needs major talent on all levels of our D I don't care what order. Not one guy will fix all our problems overnight it will take several right choices to get us better.

True.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 12:58 PM
Many experts are claiming this is a very deep draft for dlinemen...

If that's the case, taking the best DB does makes some sense, and using remaining picks on Dlinemen that could arguably be as good as some of the slightly higher graded ones...

That's not the worst logic in the world...

I think the drop off from Peterson to Prince is significant, and then to the next level of CBs, it's a huge difference. I'd liken it it to the difference between Champ and Cox from a talent perspective.

I don't see that same drop from Fairley/Darues/Bowers to Paea/Taylor/Luiget, etc. It's more like the difference between a DL like Casey Hampton and and Cullen Jenkins.

zdoor
02-11-2011, 01:05 PM
Agree. We'd be paying a premium for a 2nd level impact player.

Once again, we had an all-star CB on our D all season long... and our defense got raped.

Taking Peterson would accomplish absolutely nothing.

He's likely the surest thing in the top 3 ranked players. We need DL but we also need to hit with this pick.

If we trade down, its a different story but if we stay, I'd have no problem with the BPA and that's Peterson IMO.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 01:30 PM
why haven't the Broncos been able to do that with Champ?

They have. And with great success in 2005.

Imagine the defense without him.

Now just imagine if we had two Champ Baileys.

External influences potentially polluting your opinion:

1. Goodman is much worse than people think he is.

2. With McBath out, our safeties have been abysmal at nearly everything.

3. Every DC has had downs.

elsid13
02-11-2011, 01:31 PM
Peterson is the safe pick in this draft and play maker. If he is sitting there and Denver can not get more pick you select him and plug him into your defense for the next 10 years. The strength of this draft is on the D-line and we have enough pick in the top three to address that weakness.

theStifmeister
02-11-2011, 01:33 PM
LOVE IT

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 01:45 PM
There are no defensive linemen of that caliber in this draft, Fairley and Bowers included. Everyone on this board complains about passing up on Ed Reed. We targeted WR and passed up a greater talent because of it. Now you want to do the same thing with Patrick Peterson? He is the best defensive player in this draft, and arguably the best player period (A.J. Green). Why would you want to pass on that? I said in another thread I think Corey Liuget can be just as good if not better than Fairley. He will not be available at #36, but he will likely go in the bottom third of the first round so we could easily move up to get him. There are no other corners that come close to Peterson besides Amukamara and possibly Jimmy Smith but both of those guys will be top 15 picks themselves.

I'm not addressing you directly but everyone else who's against taking Peterson as well. This kid will worst case scenario be a very good safety a la Antrel Rolle IMO. That's worst case. He has the physical and playmaking ability of Ed Reed. Best case scenario he could be our next Champ.

I know you aren't directing it at me because Peterson is my top choice. :). I'm just pointing out to others that just adding a DL won't fix our front 7 unless he turns out to be a stud. Where as Peterson is a stud and a stud day one most DL take awhile to develop.

yerner
02-11-2011, 01:45 PM
Is this guy going to be able to play cornerback ? He's pretty big. I don't know either way, I haven't watched anything but youtube. I can't imagine if he has to switch to safety that he would warrant a top 5 pick.

razorwire77
02-11-2011, 01:47 PM
We need to hit on this pick. Peterson has the best skill set of any defensive player in the draft. He's also the most NFL ready. I'd prefer to trade down to 5 or 6, grab an additional 2nd rounder and still draft Peterson. But if we can't trade down, I'd be fine with taking Patrick at 2.
1.) Re-sign Champ.
2.) Draft Peterson, bump Goodman, Cox, and Squid to nickel/dime backs
3.) Draft front 7 DE/DT/Mike LB with pick 2a, 2b, 2c (Orton, or net pick with trade down)
4.) Address additional needs S, Sam LB, Will LB through FA, and late round picks.
5.) Address RB depth with a 3rd rounder like Kendall Hunter.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 02:01 PM
We'll see how it plays out. There's a lot of different ways to assemble a playoff team. It's possible Denver can stand pat with the front 7 with a healthy Elvis and Ayers in a 4-3, keep Champ, add Peterson, DJ at MLB. Seems to me safety is an issue, we'll see. There's no telling what will be the correct combination.

Who in gods name is saying "stand pat" on the front seven?

No one will deny how terrible that situation is, but CBA pending, we have a free agency period, trades, and significantly more picks than just #2 overall.

The myopic view people approach this with "A corner doesn't contribute much!" is just flat out retarded. The defense is a unit. We need players ANYWHERE that will help dictate the gameplan for opposing offensive coordinators. The more the defense can take away, the more they can DO.

TheReverend
02-11-2011, 02:03 PM
Fyi, anyone know what the best way to fix safety deficiencies is?

Spoiler: Better coverage underneath.

bendog
02-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Popps is against it, so it's probably a good idea.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 02:07 PM
Popps is against it, so it's probably a good idea.

hahaha ROFL!

Gcver2ver3
02-11-2011, 02:41 PM
I think the drop off from Peterson to Prince is significant, and then to the next level of CBs, it's a huge difference. I'd liken it it to the difference between Champ and Cox from a talent perspective.

I don't see that same drop from Fairley/Darues/Bowers to Paea/Taylor/Luiget, etc. It's more like the difference between a DL like Casey Hampton and and Cullen Jenkins.

yep...my point exactly...

Chris
02-11-2011, 03:06 PM
They have. And with great success in 2005.

Imagine the defense without him.

Now just imagine if we had two Champ Baileys.

External influences potentially polluting your opinion:

1. Goodman is much worse than people think he is.

2. With McBath out, our safeties have been abysmal at nearly everything.

3. Every DC has had downs.

Why is Goodman worse? He was playing hurt most of last year. I remember one flat out blown coverage when he was healthy. Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong... because I was pretty drunk on sundays this year (let's face it, you had to be).

Taco John
02-11-2011, 03:16 PM
I'd rather have Fairley.

I believe Fairley and Dumervil could be the new age DT and Neil Smif.

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 03:31 PM
I'd rather have Fairley.

I believe Fairley and Dumervil could be the new age DT and Neil Smif.

What if he goes #1?

Taco John
02-11-2011, 03:35 PM
What if he goes #1?

I'd accept Peterson. I'd accept him anyways, but I'd be irritated if Fairley was passed over for Peterson.

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 03:44 PM
I'd accept Peterson. I'd accept him anyways, but I'd be irritated if Fairley was passed over for Peterson.

Not a fan of Bowers?

strafen
02-11-2011, 03:47 PM
I'd accept Peterson. I'd accept him anyways, but I'd be irritated if Fairley was passed over for Peterson.I doubt it.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 04:25 PM
Not a fan of Bowers?

I Would be disappointed If we could take Fairley or Peterson and they picked Bowers.

I really think we will be okay with our current Defensive Ends

oubronco
02-11-2011, 04:47 PM
I Would be disappointed If we could take Fairley or Peterson and they picked Bowers.

I really think we will be okay with our current Defensive Ends

Me too it's either Dareus, Fairley or Peterson in that order for me

schaaf
02-11-2011, 05:00 PM
And I think that Dareus will be better than Fairley, Dareus has been a stud for the last several years.

NFLBRONCO
02-11-2011, 05:10 PM
peterson first dareus 2nd fav

Taco John
02-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Not a fan of Bowers?

I don't see him as much of a lock as I see either Fairley or Peterson.

Abqbronco
02-11-2011, 06:13 PM
I watch a lot of LSU football and love Peterson but I am shocked he is rated this high. He's really good but I think he has been part of a really good defense for a long time. LSU gets a lot of pressure which has to help his play. It also seems like every highly touted LSU ball player has average to below average output once they hit the pro level. Tyson Jackson, Glen Dorsey, JeMarcus Russel, Bowe... Ok, Bowe is pretty good but otherwise..

strafen
02-11-2011, 06:30 PM
And I think that Dareus will be better than Fairley, Dareus has been a stud for the last several years.

Can't go wrong with Bama players.
All they know is defense. I actually like Dareus a lot...

schaaf
02-11-2011, 06:40 PM
I watch a lot of LSU football and love Peterson but I am shocked he is rated this high. He's really good but I think he has been part of a really good defense for a long time. LSU gets a lot of pressure which has to help his play. It also seems like every highly touted LSU ball player has average to below average output once they hit the pro level. Tyson Jackson, Glen Dorsey, JeMarcus Russel, Bowe... Ok, Bowe is pretty good but otherwise..

I would say Tyson Jackson, Glen Dorsey, and Jamarcus are all the type that get hyped up because of their position and their stock is inflated because teams reach for them.

PTC
02-11-2011, 06:41 PM
I watch a lot of LSU football and love Peterson but I am shocked he is rated this high. He's really good but I think he has been part of a really good defense for a long time. LSU gets a lot of pressure which has to help his play. It also seems like every highly touted LSU ball player has average to below average output once they hit the pro level. Tyson Jackson, Glen Dorsey, JeMarcus Russel, Bowe... Ok, Bowe is pretty good but otherwise..

Come on now... look at the teams those players went to. Nobody is succeeding there.

Popps
02-11-2011, 06:49 PM
So, you're going to draft Peterson and then what... let Bailey go? Worse yet, sign Bailey to a massive contract and have the most expensive pair of CB's in history?

So, scenario 1:
Draft Peterson - Let Bailey go = If we're lucky, we're as good in the secondary as we were last year, but probably not.

Scenario 2:
Draft Peterson, sign Bailey - Tons of $$ and resources dumped into a couple of CB's with absolutely no ability to rush the passer or stop the run up front.


The wild card here would be if we go out and make an impact signing at DT, or maybe two impact signings.

But, we desperately need DT's, possibly another DE and someone who can actually play MLB for real. (i.e. not DJ Williams.)


Again, we watched teams throw away from Bailey all season and still carve up our defense. TE's killed us all year. RB's killed us all year.

Overall, our secondary played fairly well when healthy. Our front seven was a disaster. Why use a #2 overall pick on a CB with those as your known values?

Trade down and load up on picks, or take an impact player.

Popps
02-11-2011, 06:52 PM
From what I recall, no CB has ever been selected in the top 3. Ask yourself why that might be.

The best thing that can possibly happen is that his stock continues to rise, and Carolina takes him, imo.

Popps
02-11-2011, 07:01 PM
I don't see him as much of a lock as I see either Fairley or Peterson.

The problem with Bowers is... what do you do with Ayers? But, he looks like he may be able to dominate.

Look at what impact pass-rushers have done for Chicago and Green Bay this pass season.

I'd be fine with Bowers, Fairley or Dareus.... regardless of what kind of career Peterson has.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 07:04 PM
So, you're going to draft Peterson and then what... let Bailey go? Worse yet, sign Bailey to a massive contract and have the most expensive pair of CB's in history?

So, scenario 1:
Draft Peterson - Let Bailey go = If we're lucky, we're as good in the secondary as we were last year, but probably not.

Scenario 2:
Draft Peterson, sign Bailey - Tons of $$ and resources dumped into a couple of CB's with absolutely no ability to rush the passer or stop the run up front.


The wild card here would be if we go out and make an impact signing at DT, or maybe two impact signings.

But, we desperately need DT's, possibly another DE and someone who can actually play MLB for real. (i.e. not DJ Williams.)


Again, we watched teams throw away from Bailey all season and still carve up our defense. TE's killed us all year. RB's killed us all year.

Overall, our secondary played fairly well when healthy. Our front seven was a disaster. Why use a #2 overall pick on a CB with those as your known values?

Trade down and load up on picks, or take an impact player.

We could very easily not have either of our starting CB's next year.

Requiem
02-11-2011, 07:05 PM
There is no problem if Bowers is selected with Ayers. The better player would play, and I'm assuming it'd be Bowers.

Popps
02-11-2011, 07:06 PM
There is no problem if Bowers is selected with Ayers. The better player would play, and I'm assuming it'd be Bowers.

Works for me.

Kick some QB ###.

yerner
02-11-2011, 07:07 PM
The problem with Bowers is... what do you do with Ayers? But, he looks like he may be able to dominate.

Look at what impact pass-rushers have done for Chicago and Green Bay this pass season.

I'd be fine with Bowers, Fairley or Dareus.... regardless of what kind of career Peterson has.

I don't think this new coach has to show any commitment to Ayers. He just hasn't proven enough to be given that type of respect. Plus you can't really have to many pass rushers. Look at the NY Giants. When they get healthy they get after the qb with a lot of different de's. Bowers, Ayers, Doom rotation and going after a quarterback might be pretty exciting.

gyldenlove
02-11-2011, 07:09 PM
I don't think this new coach has to show any commitment to Ayers. He just hasn't proven enough to be given that type of respect. Plus you can't really have to many pass rushers. Look at the NY Giants. When they get healthy they get after the qb with a lot of different de's. Bowers, Ayers, Doom rotation and going after a quarterback might be pretty exciting.

Right now I would prefer Fairley or Dareus to Bowers, but I still prefer Bowers to Peterson, as the Steelers have proven you can win with a great front 7 and an average backfield, doing it the other way around is extremely difficult.

Popps
02-11-2011, 07:14 PM
I don't think this new coach has to show any commitment to Ayers. He just hasn't proven enough to be given that type of respect. Plus you can't really have to many pass rushers. Look at the NY Giants. When they get healthy they get after the qb with a lot of different de's. Bowers, Ayers, Doom rotation and going after a quarterback might be pretty exciting.

Again, works for me.

maher_tyler
02-11-2011, 07:42 PM
I think with the rise of Newton that either SF, Tenn or AZ trade up, taking our #2...

bronco0608
02-11-2011, 08:00 PM
There is no problem if Bowers is selected with Ayers. The better player would play, and I'm assuming it'd be Bowers.

It we took Bowers, Ayers would presumably move to DT. Ayers played DT for a couple of season at Tenneessee. He is already 6'3" 275, if he adds 10 more pounds, he would have the size to play. Sort of like Rod Coleman from the Raiders a couple of years ago. Coleman was 6'2" 280 pounds and he was a beast.

Archer81
02-11-2011, 08:10 PM
It we took Bowers, Ayers would presumably move to DT. Ayers played DT for a couple of season at Tenneessee. He is already 6'3" 275, if he adds 10 more pounds, he would have the size to play. Sort of like Rod Coleman from the Raiders a couple of years ago. Coleman was 6'2" 280 pounds and he was a beast.


I was under the impression Fox favors bigger defensive tackles. 315-330lb range. Our division also has two of the better rushing games in it. I dont think a 280 pound coverted DE to LB to DT can hold up unless he is part of a pretty deep rotation.

:Broncos:

bronco0608
02-11-2011, 08:18 PM
I was under the impression Fox favors bigger defensive tackles. 315-330lb range. Our division also has two of the better rushing games in it. I dont think a 280 pound coverted DE to LB to DT can hold up unless he is part of a pretty deep rotation.

:Broncos:

Excellent point. We shall see.

peacepipe
02-11-2011, 08:19 PM
I think with the rise of Newton that either SF, Tenn or AZ trade up, taking our #2...
Newton is not going to rise that high. Newton will go in the mid to low 1st round. No one is going to trade up that high for a player that's going to need alot of grooming.

elsid13
02-11-2011, 08:23 PM
I understand the desire to improve the front 7, but with the #2 pick you need to find the least risk player available that going to be on team and contribute for long time. That player is Peterson. Finely and Darius aren't Suh and McCoy. Take Peterson and swing around pick the DL between the 2nd and 3rd rounders. Less risk of failure that way.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 08:28 PM
There is no problem if Bowers is selected with Ayers. The better player would play, and I'm assuming it'd be Bowers.

The problem that I see with this line of thought is that Ayers > DJ, Hill, Hunter, Haggan, Thomas, Vickerson.

So you're essentially upgrading the strongest position on defense if we go 4-3. I'd rather Von Miller because at least he's a giant improvement over any LB we have in a 4-3 look.

schaaf
02-11-2011, 08:30 PM
People seem to forget that Ayers was one of our top 4 players on Defense last year

oubronco
02-11-2011, 08:32 PM
People seem to forget that Ayers was one of our top 4 players on Defense last year

That's not saying a whole lot, this team needs a serious makeover on the front 7

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 08:33 PM
Right now I would prefer Fairley or Dareus to Bowers, but I still prefer Bowers to Peterson, as the Steelers have proven you can win with a great front 7 and an average backfield, doing it the other way around is extremely difficult.

Calling a back 4 with Troy Polamalu on it average is about as absurd a comment I've seen.

And BTW, they're defense struggled when Polamalu was injured.

cutthemdown
02-11-2011, 08:36 PM
I love the safety Moore from UCLA. Maybe Broncos could get him in the 2nd, skip on Peterson in the first and grab one of the dline guys. Then at least we have a chance of getting better on both ends of the defense. Especially if we can keep Champ.

Peterson looks pretty good though.

Archer81
02-11-2011, 08:36 PM
Calling a back 4 with Troy Polamalu on it average is about as absurd a comment I've seen.

And BTW, they're defense struggled when Polamalu was injured.


Without Polamalu it is an average secondary. He makes the other three better.


:Broncos:

PTC
02-11-2011, 08:42 PM
What people fail to realize when they're taking the value of a safety to a defense like the Steelers and then attempting to say that idea will be true across the NFL, and here on the Broncos... is that teams run different schemes and positions will have less/more value depending on that.

Do you know who both Brodney Pool and Eric Smith are?

Chances are, probably not...

oubronco
02-11-2011, 08:57 PM
What people fail to realize when they're taking the value of a safety to a defense like the Steelers and then attempting to say that idea will be true across the NFL, and here on the Broncos... is that teams run different schemes and positions will have less/more value depending on that.

Do you know who both Brodney Pool and Eric Smith are?

Chances are, probably not...

Sure do he played for the Sooners and is now playing for the Jets

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 09:12 PM
Do you know who both Brodney Pool and Eric Smith are?



Yes.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 09:15 PM
Without Polamalu it is an average secondary. He makes the other three better.



He makes the other 10 better.

PTC
02-11-2011, 09:21 PM
He makes the other 10 better.

Wasn't doing much when the Steelers couldn't get a pass rush... in fact he looked bad and completely botched a crucial goal line possession.

PTC
02-11-2011, 09:23 PM
At the end of the day it's scheme driven, Troy's importance in the Steelers defense wouldn't necessarily mean he'd be just as important as the Bears defense (and he wouldn't unless they completely changed it)...

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 09:38 PM
At the end of the day it's scheme driven, Troy's importance in the Steelers defense wouldn't necessarily mean he'd be just as important as the Bears defense (and he wouldn't unless they completely changed it)...He wouldn't mean as much to another team only if they were dumb enough to not build their defense around his abilities.

TheReverend
02-12-2011, 09:09 AM
Why are people trying to use the Steelers as an example?

Their best DL (Keisel) was a 7th round pick and their best pass rusher was a UDFA (Harrison) and their best LB was an FA acquisition that "busted" for the Jets (Farrior).

The Steelers are an example of developing their players within a system. Nothing more.

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 09:39 AM
Who in gods name is saying "stand pat" on the front seven?

No one will deny how terrible that situation is, but CBA pending, we have a free agency period, trades, and significantly more picks than just #2 overall.

The myopic view people approach this with "A corner doesn't contribute much!" is just flat out retarded. The defense is a unit. We need players ANYWHERE that will help dictate the gameplan for opposing offensive coordinators. The more the defense can take away, the more they can DO.

Agreed.

HAT
02-12-2011, 09:44 AM
Why are people trying to use the Steelers as an example?

Their best DL (Keisel) was a 7th round pick and their best pass rusher was a UDFA (Harrison) and their best LB was an FA acquisition that "busted" for the Jets (Farrior).

The Steelers are an example of developing their players within a system. Nothing more.

Well, there you go...That's why they lost the Super Bowl. The ONLY way to build a defense is by taking DL with the #2 pick.

/sarc.

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 10:02 AM
Why is Goodman worse? He was playing hurt most of last year. I remember one flat out blown coverage when he was healthy. Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong... because I was pretty drunk on sundays this year (let's face it, you had to be).

Goodman is a little long in the tooth, though. 33 yrs old come August. He was a stopgap guy from the time he was signed. I guess they were counting on Phonz Smith to be his replacement, but that didn't work out.

I've been saying try to sign Asomugha in FA and reup Champ, but this CBA mess f's up the FA.

If they can sign Asomugha and reup Champ, that eliminates Peterson from the discussion and they can take a chance on Marcel Dareus, Bowers, Fairley at #2.

There's a ton of different scenarios right now that can improve the D. We don't even know if they're gonna stay with the 3-4, go 4-3, hybrid.

I guess a lot depends on how they evaluate Ayers. Is he a 3-4 OLB in their minds, a 4-3 DE, a 3-4 DE, or a bust?

Elvis is a known quantity in a 3-4 or a 4-3. He can rush the passer, he's a disruptive force to any passing offense no matter 3-4 or 4-3. Ayers is the question, and they might base the draft strategy around their evaluation of Ayers, and maybe DJ Williams also.

Popps
02-12-2011, 10:17 AM
Hasn't been much talk about it, but DJ Williams could end up missing several games to start the season, no? 2 DUI arrests? Can't imagine he'll get off scott-free for that one.

I'd be thrilled if we could move him for a pick. Pretty much done with his routine at this point. But if he stays, at least he'd be moving to his natural position. (WOLB.) He's a disaster in the middle.

ChampBailey24
02-12-2011, 10:19 AM
this is a which came first scenario. Whether you see the pass rush as the egg, or the secondary as the chicken. You can argue for eternity as to which is right, but you will never know until we just draft someone. I for one just want whoever makes us better. I tend to think that is Peterson, because you dont pass up talent and size like that, but I am ok with whatever happens.

TheReverend
02-12-2011, 10:21 AM
this is a which came first scenario. Whether you see the pass rush as the egg, or the secondary as the chicken. You can argue for eternity as to which is right, but you will never know until we just draft someone. I for one just want whoever makes us better. I tend to think that is Peterson, because you dont pass up talent and size like that, but I am ok with whatever happens.

And the answer is the same, too: "Who cares, both give results"

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 10:24 AM
I think with the rise of Newton that either SF, Tenn or AZ trade up, taking our #2...

That could be very interesting, the Cam Newton factor. He's working hard to improve his stock. I was impressed seeing his San Diego workout with that QB guru. And he's working on his personal presentation skills also. The kid seems to be a winner in the making. Seems like he's not gonna limit himself through lack of effort.

Dedhed
02-12-2011, 10:26 AM
this is a which came first scenario. Whether you see the pass rush as the egg, or the secondary as the chicken. You can argue for eternity as to which is right, but you will never know until we just draft someone. I for one just want whoever makes us better. I tend to think that is Peterson, because you dont pass up talent and size like that, but I am ok with whatever happens.You're exactly right.

Which pretty much goes to show that you need both. There are just as many coverage sacks as there are interceptions because of pressure on the quarterback.

Which is why the BPA approach makes the most sense. Even if that means taking a, gasp, CB in the, gasp, top 3.

Dedhed
02-12-2011, 10:32 AM
I think with the rise of Newton that either SF, Tenn or AZ trade up, taking our #2...

Newton's stock going through the roof certainly adds value to our pick. Best case is that one of the above teams is giddy for Newton, and Carolina is sold on Fairley.

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 12:05 PM
Newton's stock going through the roof certainly adds value to our pick. Best case is that one of the above teams is giddy for Newton, and Carolina is sold on Fairley.

Elway should go to San Diego to watch Newton's workouts, just for the speculation we'd see throughout the NFL.

mattob14
02-12-2011, 02:50 PM
It we took Bowers, Ayers would presumably move to DT. Ayers played DT for a couple of season at Tenneessee. He is already 6'3" 275, if he adds 10 more pounds, he would have the size to play. Sort of like Rod Coleman from the Raiders a couple of years ago. Coleman was 6'2" 280 pounds and he was a beast.

There's no need to move Ayers to DT full-time. Dumerville's a great pass-rusher, but he'll be better if you keep him fresh. Rotate Ayers/Bowers/Doom based on the situation and keep each of them fresh throughout the game. Use Ayers/Bowers in running situations, with Bowers/Doom in passing situations, possibly sliding Ayers to DT generate a push up the middle. Keeping fresh legs on the field should really pay dividends in the 4th quarter too.

Popps
02-12-2011, 04:15 PM
There's no need to move Ayers to DT full-time. Dumerville's a great pass-rusher, but he'll be better if you keep him fresh. Rotate Ayers/Bowers/Doom based on the situation and keep each of them fresh throughout the game. Use Ayers/Bowers in running situations, with Bowers/Doom in passing situations, possibly sliding Ayers to DT generate a push up the middle. Keeping fresh legs on the field should really pay dividends in the 4th quarter too.

We just signed Doom to a massive contract. He's got to play at least half the snaps, but... I like your line of thinking, overall.

mattob14
02-12-2011, 04:37 PM
We just signed Doom to a massive contract. He's got to play at least half the snaps, but... I like your line of thinking, overall.

I agree...and that shouldn't be a problem. Give Doom 60% or so of the snaps at RDE, with Bowers taking the rest. On passing downs, move Bowers to LDE, where he and Doom can be dangerous bookends. If Ayers/Bowers have something like a 65/35 split at LDE, with Ayers seeing maybe 10% of the snaps at DT in obvious passing situations, you keep your best players on the field without having any one of them taking more than 75% or so of the snaps, allowing guys to attack the whole time they're on the field. If Denver could then grab 2 of Taylor/Liuget/Austin/Wilkerson/Paea at 36 and 46, we could see a deep, talented DL once these guys develop.

Dedhed
02-12-2011, 05:33 PM
I agree...and that shouldn't be a problem. Give Doom 60% or so of the snaps at RDE, with Bowers taking the rest. On passing downs, move Bowers to LDE, where he and Doom can be dangerous bookends. If Ayers/Bowers have something like a 65/35 split at LDE, with Ayers seeing maybe 10% of the snaps at DT in obvious passing situations, you keep your best players on the field without having any one of them taking more than 75% or so of the snaps, allowing guys to attack the whole time they're on the field. If Denver could then grab 2 of Taylor/Liuget/Austin/Wilkerson/Paea at 36 and 46, we could see a deep, talented DL once these guys develop.
Drafting 3 DL would be a terrible way to go about things.We have needs to address all over the field, and stockpiling at one position isn't going to help nearly as much as taking the BPA at 3-4 different areas.

You've just defined "Need" based drafting, and we've been bearing the rotten fruits of that philosophy for a decade.

Mediator12
02-12-2011, 05:38 PM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.

Peterson is damn good, he might even be the next Dominant DB in the NFL. Nobody should be questioning that at all. I certainly do not. However, the real question is how do you take a terrible defense and make it credible? The Simple answer is you stop the run and make the offense one dimensional on second and third down. That is what the Elite defenses in the league do. It is no surprise that the top half of the defenses in the league were ALL TOP 16 in rushing efficiency as well.

When you have a dreadful defense, you do not stop the run very well and therefore teams get impact plays on your defense on second and short and third and short. Then, they kill you with Play action on first downs and get impact plays against your pass defense, no matter who is covering.

I have said this time and time again, you build a defense from the front back and not the back to front. Scheme's are divised from the front to the coverage. Gap integrity comes first, then coverage. This team has neither a solid front or back and only subpar LB unit as well. It does need a huge influx of talent everywhere. However, the back end will not hold up without a front seven that can play the run and rush the passer. It simply will not, no matter if you have a Shutdown CB and a great free safety because teams can simply exploit your other weaknesses with matchups in the passing game or running the ball.

DEN's defense was good in 2005 for 2 reasons. They were second in the league in run defense and they went to a real aggressive cover zero blitz scheme that fooled the league for over half the year. The guys on the back end were challenged all year, but they had tons of favorable down and distance scenarios in the passing game that allowed them to blitz or fake blitz drop zone on third and longs. They dictated the down and distance to teams and made them predictable. Teams only threw at champ 30+ times that year, yet he had a bunch of INT's and Passes defensed. He was stellar that year because they played the run and forced teams into desperate plays in the passing game.

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.

Requiem
02-12-2011, 05:58 PM
I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

And on the flip side, taking one of the highly rated defensive line prospects does not guarantee that opposing teams won't fair as well against our D this next year either.

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 06:17 PM
. . . . . .

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.

Nice rant. But, who is the DL guy to pick? Dareus, Bowers, Fairley? Picking a pass-rushing DE for a 4-3 is admitting Ayers is a bust, right? DT at #2 is ok with a lot of people, but none of them are Suh in this draft.

So WTF are you gonna do at #2? Tough choice.

TonyR
02-12-2011, 06:27 PM
But, who is the DL guy to pick?


Yup, this is why I'm waffling on this debate. I prefer DL with the first pick but unless they're just as confident in that pick being a top end contributor as they are in Peterson I'd prefer going with Peterson. Taking a bust with the second pick in the draft because of need wouldn't be a very good way for the second Elway era to begin.

mattob14
02-12-2011, 06:39 PM
Drafting 3 DL would be a terrible way to go about things.We have needs to address all over the field, and stockpiling at one position isn't going to help nearly as much as taking the BPA at 3-4 different areas.

You've just defined "Need" based drafting, and we've been bearing the rotten fruits of that philosophy for a decade.

Sure, taking the BPA from 3-4 positions is the best route, but look at the draft class this year. Ayers may be the only decent LB in this class, and he's not worth #2 and won't be there in the 2nd. The Safety class is thin, and the top CB's will probably be gone before pick #36. With the depth of the D-line class, the BPA will probably be a D-lineman with each of those first 3 picks. The fact that it also happens to be the area of biggest need is just a bonus.

orange crusher
02-12-2011, 06:43 PM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.

Peterson is damn good, he might even be the next Dominant DB in the NFL. Nobody should be questioning that at all. I certainly do not. However, the real question is how do you take a terrible defense and make it credible? The Simple answer is you stop the run and make the offense one dimensional on second and third down. That is what the Elite defenses in the league do. It is no surprise that the top half of the defenses in the league were ALL TOP 16 in rushing efficiency as well.

When you have a dreadful defense, you do not stop the run very well and therefore teams get impact plays on your defense on second and short and third and short. Then, they kill you with Play action on first downs and get impact plays against your pass defense, no matter who is covering.

I have said this time and time again, you build a defense from the front back and not the back to front. Scheme's are divised from the front to the coverage. Gap integrity comes first, then coverage. This team has neither a solid front or back and only subpar LB unit as well. It does need a huge influx of talent everywhere. However, the back end will not hold up without a front seven that can play the run and rush the passer. It simply will not, no matter if you have a Shutdown CB and a great free safety because teams can simply exploit your other weaknesses with matchups in the passing game or running the ball.

DEN's defense was good in 2005 for 2 reasons. They were second in the league in run defense and they went to a real aggressive cover zero blitz scheme that fooled the league for over half the year. The guys on the back end were challenged all year, but they had tons of favorable down and distance scenarios in the passing game that allowed them to blitz or fake blitz drop zone on third and longs. They dictated the down and distance to teams and made them predictable. Teams only threw at champ 30+ times that year, yet he had a bunch of INT's and Passes defensed. He was stellar that year because they played the run and forced teams into desperate plays in the passing game.

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.

Excellent post! Well said.

Popps
02-12-2011, 06:55 PM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.

Peterson is damn good, he might even be the next Dominant DB in the NFL. Nobody should be questioning that at all. I certainly do not. However, the real question is how do you take a terrible defense and make it credible? The Simple answer is you stop the run and make the offense one dimensional on second and third down. That is what the Elite defenses in the league do. It is no surprise that the top half of the defenses in the league were ALL TOP 16 in rushing efficiency as well.

When you have a dreadful defense, you do not stop the run very well and therefore teams get impact plays on your defense on second and short and third and short. Then, they kill you with Play action on first downs and get impact plays against your pass defense, no matter who is covering.

I have said this time and time again, you build a defense from the front back and not the back to front. Scheme's are divised from the front to the coverage. Gap integrity comes first, then coverage. This team has neither a solid front or back and only subpar LB unit as well. It does need a huge influx of talent everywhere. However, the back end will not hold up without a front seven that can play the run and rush the passer. It simply will not, no matter if you have a Shutdown CB and a great free safety because teams can simply exploit your other weaknesses with matchups in the passing game or running the ball.

DEN's defense was good in 2005 for 2 reasons. They were second in the league in run defense and they went to a real aggressive cover zero blitz scheme that fooled the league for over half the year. The guys on the back end were challenged all year, but they had tons of favorable down and distance scenarios in the passing game that allowed them to blitz or fake blitz drop zone on third and longs. They dictated the down and distance to teams and made them predictable. Teams only threw at champ 30+ times that year, yet he had a bunch of INT's and Passes defensed. He was stellar that year because they played the run and forced teams into desperate plays in the passing game.

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.


Class dismissed.

bronco0608
02-12-2011, 08:39 PM
And on the flip side, taking one of the highly rated defensive line prospects does not guarantee that opposing teams won't fair as well against our D this next year either.

So high-rated defensive linemen would not help the worst run defense in the league?

That makes a whole lot of sense. Let's just never address the issue (like we have been doing), and let's keep having the same problems.

And we need to cut the crap about finding similiarly talented Dlinemen in the 2nd round either.

Once you get to that point, the pickings become very slim. You have fat ****s like Powe and Taylor that never produced in college (terrible numbers), yet are suppose to become difference makers at the next level? Nope, almost never happens. If you had one sack your senior year in college, you have zero sacks in the NFL.

Then you could move to guys like Drake Nevis, players that get pushed around in the run game, but are great gap penatrators. Doesn't help us.

We are almost forced to take the best defensive lineman because our defensive linemen suck. Every stat points to it. And luckily for us, two out of the top three picks are dlinemen. YAYYY!

bronco0608
02-12-2011, 09:07 PM
Denver's 2009 defense: 3rd in passing yards given up, 2 pro bowlers in the back four, but 21st in points?

Top 5 in passes defended, 185 yards passing per game. Yet...

If you look at our 2009 backfield, it was awesome. About as awesome as you can get in the NFL.

1) A shutdown, all-pro corner in Champ Bailey.
2) A pro bowl safety in Dawkins.
3) A great number 2 corner in Goodman who had 5 ints for a 2nd straight season.
4) And a solid fs in Renaldo Hill who is widely regarded as one of the smartest DBs in the game (film study).

Where did that get us? 21st in points given up.

In the nfl, you can't beat the db quality we had that year and our defense at the end was giving up 30 pts a game because we couldn't stop the run with our front seven.

Cito Pelon
02-12-2011, 09:15 PM
Well, the only concrete statement I've heard from John Fox is he believes a defense is built first with the DL.

listopencil
02-12-2011, 09:27 PM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.



Med, I don't think anyone misses the point of how much a D-Linemen affects a Defense. The point I see missed the most is this: You can't force the available talent to match up with your particular draft order. A bad reach is still a bad pick, and we can't really afford a bad pick at #2. If we end up with a player that is worthy of where we pick him, and he plays on the Defense, I consider it a win.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-12-2011, 09:36 PM
Med, I don't think anyone misses the point of how much a D-Linemen affects a Defense. The point I see missed the most is this: You can't force the available talent to match up with your particular draft order. A bad reach is still a bad pick, and we can't really afford a bad pick at #2. If we end up with a player that is worthy of where we pick him, and he plays on the Defense, I consider it a win.

Consensus states that 2 of the top 3 picks are DL. It's hardly "reaching" Its not like us reaching for a QB when no one thinks any of the QBs are top ten prospects.

And, I think, since we are playing mostly zone, its absurd to take a CB at 2.

listopencil
02-12-2011, 09:48 PM
Consensus states that 2 of the top 3 picks are DL. It's hardly "reaching" Its not like us reaching for a QB when no one thinks any of the QBs are top ten prospects.

And, I think, since we are playing mostly zone, its absurd to take a CB at 2.

What consensus? I've seen a lot of names being thrown around for the top 3-5. And it's never absurd to take a defender that matches the value of your pick.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-12-2011, 09:55 PM
What consensus? I've seen a lot of names being thrown around for the top 3-5. And it's never absurd to take a defender that matches the value of your pick.

Show me 5 places that dont include either Bowers or Fairley in the top 3. And most places i've seen have both of them going in the top 3. Some put Von Miller there, i'd probably be ok with him too. And just like some dont put Bowers and Fairley there, others dont put Peterson. I dont know why Peterson is such a God and Bowers and Fairley arent.

Popps
02-12-2011, 10:26 PM
Show me 5 places that dont include either Bowers or Fairley in the top 3. And most places i've seen have both of them going in the top 3. Some put Von Miller there, i'd probably be ok with him too. And just like some dont put Bowers and Fairley there, others dont put Peterson. I dont know why Peterson is such a God and Bowers and Fairley arent.

CBS has a draft with Peterson going 1st.

One can only dream...

listopencil
02-12-2011, 10:27 PM
Show me 5 places that dont include either Bowers or Fairley in the top 3. And most places i've seen have both of them going in the top 3. Some put Von Miller there, i'd probably be ok with him too. And just like some dont put Bowers and Fairley there, others dont put Peterson. I dont know why Peterson is such a God and Bowers and Fairley arent.

No, that wouldn't be "two of the top three". That would be Peterson and one of those two guys. I haven't seen a consensus showing DL in two of the top three picks of the draft. I'm talking about mocks and articles I've seen over the last four to six weeks-maybe you have better info than I do regarding the mocks, but I haven't seen it. From what I can tell Peterson looks like he does his job better than either Fairley or Bowers do theirs. Fairley also looks like he might have some attitude problems and has been seen as somewhat of a "dirty player".

epicSocialism4tw
02-12-2011, 11:11 PM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.

Peterson is damn good, he might even be the next Dominant DB in the NFL. Nobody should be questioning that at all. I certainly do not. However, the real question is how do you take a terrible defense and make it credible? The Simple answer is you stop the run and make the offense one dimensional on second and third down. That is what the Elite defenses in the league do. It is no surprise that the top half of the defenses in the league were ALL TOP 16 in rushing efficiency as well.

When you have a dreadful defense, you do not stop the run very well and therefore teams get impact plays on your defense on second and short and third and short. Then, they kill you with Play action on first downs and get impact plays against your pass defense, no matter who is covering.

I have said this time and time again, you build a defense from the front back and not the back to front. Scheme's are divised from the front to the coverage. Gap integrity comes first, then coverage. This team has neither a solid front or back and only subpar LB unit as well. It does need a huge influx of talent everywhere. However, the back end will not hold up without a front seven that can play the run and rush the passer. It simply will not, no matter if you have a Shutdown CB and a great free safety because teams can simply exploit your other weaknesses with matchups in the passing game or running the ball.

DEN's defense was good in 2005 for 2 reasons. They were second in the league in run defense and they went to a real aggressive cover zero blitz scheme that fooled the league for over half the year. The guys on the back end were challenged all year, but they had tons of favorable down and distance scenarios in the passing game that allowed them to blitz or fake blitz drop zone on third and longs. They dictated the down and distance to teams and made them predictable. Teams only threw at champ 30+ times that year, yet he had a bunch of INT's and Passes defensed. He was stellar that year because they played the run and forced teams into desperate plays in the passing game.

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.

Fantastic post.

You should start your own blog.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-13-2011, 01:08 AM
No, that wouldn't be "two of the top three". That would be Peterson and one of those two guys. I haven't seen a consensus showing DL in two of the top three picks of the draft. I'm talking about mocks and articles I've seen over the last four to six weeks-maybe you have better info than I do regarding the mocks, but I haven't seen it. From what I can tell Peterson looks like he does his job better than either Fairley or Bowers do theirs. Fairley also looks like he might have some attitude problems and has been seen as somewhat of a "dirty player".

Most of the drafts ive seen have Fairley and Bowers going in the top 3. Who are these other players that have kicked them out of the consensus?

Requiem
02-13-2011, 01:19 AM
So high-rated defensive linemen would not help the worst run defense in the league?

Just because they are rated highly doesn't mean they are going to have a significant impact entering the league. Furthermore, transition on the DL from college to pros is one of the hardest moves there is. To expect Fairley, Dareus or Bowers to come in and "do work" their first year would be expecting a little too much. Not everyone is Ndamukung Suh.

That makes a whole lot of sense. Let's just never address the issue (like we have been doing), and let's keep having the same problems.

Addressing DL @ #2 doesn't guarantee success on the road. And quite honestly, I don't feel that Bowers or Fairley, who are in fact one year wonders are worthy of that selection. IMHO, I'd rather have Dareus, for his schematic versatility, demeanor and what he can bring to our defense.

And we need to cut the crap about finding similiarly talented Dlinemen in the 2nd round either.

The pickings really aren't that slim, considering the depth of the class. I am not sure how many players are going to go in the first round on the DL, but estimates are around 7-8, with 10 being the high point.

Taking a guy like Peterson at #2, and having two second round picks and a third is plenty enough to do damage in. Quite honestly, the depth of this class, especially at our positions of need are so damn terrible, I wouldn't doubt Denver having interest in getting multiple top selections to get the best prospects at the position.

Once you get to that point, the pickings become very slim. You have fat ****s like Powe and Taylor that never produced in college (terrible numbers), yet are suppose to become difference makers at the next level? Nope, almost never happens. If you had one sack your senior year in college, you have zero sacks in the NFL.

I don't like Powe as much as a prospect nearly as Taylor, but as a second-round selection (perhaps third, it would really depend on the rush of DL in this draft) he is worth that selection. Taylor is the kind of guy we could use at the nose position moving forward.

Then you could move to guys like Drake Nevis, players that get pushed around in the run game, but are great gap penatrators. Doesn't help us.

Certainly helps in the pass rush, but I grade out Wilkerson, Liuget and Ballard as all better picks than Nevis. I even like Jarvis Jenkins better than most.

We are almost forced to take the best defensive lineman because our defensive linemen suck. Every stat points to it. And luckily for us, two out of the top three picks are dlinemen. YAYYY!

We aren't forced to do anything. Almost very position on the defensive side of the ball is upgradeable.

In my opinion, Peterson is the best defensive prospect in this draft. He is more of a sure thing than Fairley or Bowers, one-hit wonders in college.

If you are asking me, I'd rather Peterson @ #2 -- and if we stand pat, Wilkerson, Liuget, Ballard or Jenkins in the coupe of rounds after.

#2 is not the position I'd want to take a DL in this draft, especially when most outlets have 7-10 guys with first round grades. You want a DL? In my eyes, trade down. The talent will be there. The dropoff from Peterson to any of the other secondary level players is immense, and not nearly as big as it is from the DL tiers.

Anyways, if we take Fairley, Bowers or Dareus (praying for him) at #2 -- I'll be fine with it because it certainly addresses a need. However, I won't be surprised if we do pick DL, that person sucks, and Peterson ends up being an All-Pro and a few years later, I will get to say, "Told you so."

In short, we need DL terribly, but it doesn't necessitate us having to use our top pick on one. Especially with the depth and talent available.

Dedhed
02-13-2011, 07:31 AM
Show me 5 places that dont include either Bowers or Fairley in the top 3. And most places i've seen have both of them going in the top 3. Some put Von Miller there, i'd probably be ok with him too. And just like some dont put Bowers and Fairley there, others dont put Peterson. I dont know why Peterson is such a God and Bowers and Fairley arent.
Basing any analysis on a consensus between draft pundits has no bearing here.

BroncoInferno
02-13-2011, 07:35 AM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point..

Actually, you are the one who is missing the point. NOBODY disagrees that improving the front seven will be vital to the success of the defense. What a lot of us disagree with is the myopic notion that the #2 pick MUST be DL. As Rev pointed out earlier, the Steelers only have two 1st round picks in their front seven, Timmons and Ziggy Hood, and Hood was only starting due to injury. The key is that the Steelers know their system and aquire talent that fits that system, then do a great job of dveloping them. THAT'S the key, not being gung-ho that #2 MUST be DL. We could draft Fairley and he could turn out to be the next Warren Sapp, but if we fail to aquire and develop talent around him, he will be just as wasted as Champ Bailey has been the last couple of seasons. The same thing is true for Peterson. We need playmakers on this defense at ANY position, and if the staff concludes that Peterson is the best playmaker on defense in this draft and he is available, then they should take him. You're acting like it's a zero sum game, that passing on DL at #2 will make it next to impossible to build a front seven. That is simply false. Like I said, even if we do draft Fairley or Dareus there would still be plenty of work left to do. Get the best defensive playmaker at #2. If that's Peterson, so be it.

BroncoInferno
02-13-2011, 07:46 AM
Let me add, I am not necessarily convinced just yet that Peterson is heads and shoulders above the top rated DL as a prospect. All things being equal, I would certainly prefer we go the DL route. I am simply arguing from a philosophical stand-point, you can't lock yourself into the myopic notion that #2 MUST be a DL regardless of how good you think Peterson is. If the staff evaluates Peterson as the best CB talent in the last decade, as some are claiming, and their evaluations of Fairley et al are a level below that, then you have to take Peterson. If the plan for building the front seven is as myopic as "we MUST spend #2 on DL at all cost", then we are probably in a lot of trouble anyway, even if we draft the next Warren Sapp. The lesson of Champ Bailey is that one guy can't do it all, not that CBs are worthless.

Dedhed
02-13-2011, 07:51 AM
I have avoided this thread like the plague, because I hate how much people miss the point.

Peterson is damn good, he might even be the next Dominant DB in the NFL. Nobody should be questioning that at all. I certainly do not. However, the real question is how do you take a terrible defense and make it credible? The Simple answer is you stop the run and make the offense one dimensional on second and third down. That is what the Elite defenses in the league do. It is no surprise that the top half of the defenses in the league were ALL TOP 16 in rushing efficiency as well.

When you have a dreadful defense, you do not stop the run very well and therefore teams get impact plays on your defense on second and short and third and short. Then, they kill you with Play action on first downs and get impact plays against your pass defense, no matter who is covering.

I have said this time and time again, you build a defense from the front back and not the back to front. Scheme's are divised from the front to the coverage. Gap integrity comes first, then coverage. This team has neither a solid front or back and only subpar LB unit as well. It does need a huge influx of talent everywhere. However, the back end will not hold up without a front seven that can play the run and rush the passer. It simply will not, no matter if you have a Shutdown CB and a great free safety because teams can simply exploit your other weaknesses with matchups in the passing game or running the ball.

DEN's defense was good in 2005 for 2 reasons. They were second in the league in run defense and they went to a real aggressive cover zero blitz scheme that fooled the league for over half the year. The guys on the back end were challenged all year, but they had tons of favorable down and distance scenarios in the passing game that allowed them to blitz or fake blitz drop zone on third and longs. They dictated the down and distance to teams and made them predictable. Teams only threw at champ 30+ times that year, yet he had a bunch of INT's and Passes defensed. He was stellar that year because they played the run and forced teams into desperate plays in the passing game.

I really would love the luxury to pick a player like Peterson with the second pick. It would mean DEN had a credible Front seven and could finish their defense. However, Peterson is not going to change the fact that teams will dominate the LOS against this defense for the 6th year in a row. He simply will not make a difference in half the game.

DL is the the deepest part of this draft, but that does not mean those impact guys are going to be sitting there in the top of the second round either! One second round or late first round rookie DL will not change the front seven! This is not a one for one deal. DEN needs at least 3 credible DL to make this defense just OK again. Right now, they have zero who will impact the running game and maybe 2 in the passing game. It is not an even proposition. This is the draft to get 3-4 quality DL, not a CB in the first and couple later.

This is all about maximizing resources, not being damn safe. There is risk here at #2 and it's not just that you draft safely and get a solid non-bust player. The risk is you pass on an elite DL that you have not had the chance to draft in over a decade. The Peterson camp believes the risk is in not taking the BPA; which they assume is Peterson here. They fail to grasp the alternative. Missing on a player that can be the cornerstone of the front seven and impact both the pass and run for years, and not just the pass! Then, relying on second tier rookie DL to impact the DL for years to come. If DEN passes on a stud DL this year, remember that ALL the Great underclassmen DL declared this year. Next year's crop will be pretty bare and that means you are going to wait 2 more years to draft the DL of the future.

Nicely written, but all you've really done is made a nicely worded argument for drafting for need.

None of the great defenses in the league use that approach. People harp the hell out of the Steelers, and they almost always avoid drafting DL in the first round. Their best DL is a 7th rounder. Their 2nd best guy on the front 7 is an UDFA.

You keep arguing for better DL, but no one for Peterson is arguing against that. What I disagree with is passing on the BPA for a need.

And you keep saying how amazingly deep this DL class is which is another reason to use the #2 pick elsewhere. Your argument is long, but ultimately pretty hollow to me.

NFLBRONCO
02-13-2011, 10:50 AM
For Denver to get much better we need to draft well in 2 and 3 rounds and beyond at DL position. If you can only draft DL in round 1 it will take you forever to build this D into a solid unit. You'll be forced to waste all your resources trying to bolster one position instead of all levels of this D.

Imo CB's are underrated today with all the bubble screens used today. I think you need 2 good to great corners.


Like I said, a million times even though I'd draft Peterson if it was me. I totally understand Denver going DL with top pick.

bronco0608
02-13-2011, 08:46 PM
None of the great defenses in the league use that approach. People harp the hell out of the Steelers, and they almost always avoid drafting DL in the first round. Their best DL is a 7th rounder. Their 2nd best guy on the front 7 is an UDFA.



Once again, talking out of your ass.

First of all, they avoid drafting DL in the first round? As opposed to what? They draft tons of DBs in the first round?

Since 2000, they have drafted two defensive linemen in the first as opposed to taking one defensive back. So is that what you call "avoiding?"

Their best defensive lineman is a 7th rounder? Absolutely not. It's Casey Hampton, the former 1st round pick who has five pro bowls behind his name. Keisel has one. So, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And go back and look at how many front 7 guys the Steelers have chosen in the 1st two rounds since 2000 as opposed to DBs. You will clearly see the Steelers don't value DBs high in the draft as opposed to front seven guys.

So in the end, you dont know ****. And that my friend, is the final word.

Rascal
02-13-2011, 09:10 PM
It all starts up front. I have no problem picking Peterson if we can actually address the front seven by other means (and I don't mean retreads or rejects from other teams). Frankly, I don't see that happening.

In a dream world we trade down a bit, get an extra pick, and still pick DL.

bronco0608
02-13-2011, 09:42 PM
The argument for Peterson is this: " I wan't Peterson because he is the best player." Really? And because I want Peterson, everyone else sucks. Its not mutually exclusive.

Because of poster's hard on for Peterson, they have to discount the other two top defensive players in Fairley and Bowers.

"Oh, they are one year wonders."

"Defensive linemen bust."

But what about the holes in Peterson's game?

Peterson has had some absolutely terrible games in college. Go watch game film from him against Ole Miss, Penn State, and Georgia. He got burned repeatedly with big plays, but yet, he is the greatest Corner ever?. And up until this year, he couldn't even play 60 minutes a game without leaving with numerous minor ailments.

Is he a great athlete? Absolutely. Does he have bad game tape? You bet he does.

So lets be frank: Every player is a gamble. Peterson could be a bust. Fairley could be a bust.

But come up with a better argument than, "Oh, defensive linemen bust, but Peterson is God!"

strafen
02-13-2011, 10:14 PM
The argument for Peterson is this: " I wan't Peterson because he is the best player." Really? And because I want Peterson, everyone else sucks. Its not mutually exclusive.

Because of poster's hard on for Peterson, they have to discount the other two top defensive players in Fairley and Bowers.

"Oh, they are one year wonders."

"Defensive linemen bust."

But what about the holes in Peterson's game?

Peterson has had some absolutely terrible games in college. Go watch game film from him against Ole Miss, Penn State, and Georgia. He got burned repeatedly with big plays, but yet, he is the greatest Corner ever?

Is he a great athlete? Absolutely. Does he have bad game tape? You bet he does.

So lets be frank: Every player is a gamble. Peterson could be a bust. Fairley could be a bust.

But come up with a better argument than, "Oh, defensive linemen bust, but Peterson is God!"

I believe in Fox's strong defense philosophy.
I think whoever we draft will fit his system well.
And I mean, playing their potential in Fox's system.
So, I'm not worried too much who we're going to draft as much as I'd like to
see how's everything is going to be put together.
We have so many holes on defense, the draft alone won't address all of them.
Of course. Everything depends on any dealings to acquire extra draft picks between now and then...

Requiem
02-13-2011, 11:00 PM
If that is the argument you think people are presenting, 0608 -- you are illiterate or retarded. Perhaps both.

Those players are one year wonders and regarding Peterson, he shut down AJ Green when they played Georgia, so I'm not sure what tape you are referring to. Probably no tape at all, because I doubt you actually have spent more than a few hours looking at Peterson.

Champagne Powder
02-13-2011, 11:05 PM
Those players are one year wonders and regarding Peterson, he shut down AJ Green when they played Georgia, so I'm not sure what tape you are referring to. Probably no tape at all, because I doubt you actually have spent more than a few hours looking at Peterson.

I am not advocating that Denver drafts Bowers, but I don't understand how he gets this bad rap on this board for being a "one year wonder". He was one of the best freshmen in the country as a defensive tackle. He's been a standout all three years at Clemson.

bronco0608
02-13-2011, 11:57 PM
If that is the argument you think people are presenting, 0608 -- you are illiterate or retarded. Perhaps both.

Those players are one year wonders and regarding Peterson, he shut down AJ Green when they played Georgia, so I'm not sure what tape you are referring to. Probably no tape at all, because I doubt you actually have spent more than a few hours looking at Peterson.

In that game, AJ Green had 5 catches for 99 yards.

Once again, in that game, AJ Green had 5 catches for 99 yards.

Peterson gave up a 27 yard deep pass to Green, and gave up a 47 yard deep pass to some scrub to setup Green's game winning TD. Peterson gave up well over a 100 yards that game HIMSELF!

Check the "tape." Yet he "shutdown" Green. Come on, don't come with that weak stuff.

Next.

bronco0608
02-14-2011, 12:07 AM
I am not advocating that Denver drafts Bowers, but I don't understand how he gets this bad rap on this board for being a "one year wonder". He was one of the best freshmen in the country as a defensive tackle. He's been a standout all three years at Clemson.

As a sophomore, Bower's number were very comparable to Robert Ayer's senior season with the VOLS. Somthing like 12.5 tackles for a loss, and 4 sacks.

Then, as a junior, he blew up.

Number one rated player in high school who lived up to the billing.

And in fact, Ndumkguka Suh's 2nd year in college numbers were like 3.0 tackles for a loss and one sack.

People forget, Suh wasn't dominate until his 4th year in college, and dominated in his 5th season. Even in his most dominant state, his numbers pale in comparison to Bowers.

epicSocialism4tw
02-14-2011, 02:29 AM
I am not advocating that Denver drafts Bowers, but I don't understand how he gets this bad rap on this board for being a "one year wonder". He was one of the best freshmen in the country as a defensive tackle. He's been a standout all three years at Clemson.

Bowers is a stud, IMO. To me he looks like a better prospect than Peterson.

Bowers is a physical freak who by all appearances has a great personality.

He plays both phases of the game. He can manhandle tackles.

I would love to have this guy step into Broncos orange.

cutthemdown
02-14-2011, 02:42 AM
I will be happy with any of the big names mentioned. Fairley, Bowers, Peterson, whatever. After that we just have to hope whichever one we grab is a stud. Even AJ Green would get me excited even though our defense stinks.

The Joker
02-14-2011, 03:48 AM
I'm going to personally murder everyone in the entire world if we draft AJ Green.

Bowers, Fairley, Peterson and Dareus would all make me happy at this point, each and every one of them represent good value at #2. Ideally I'd want the D-Line guy over the defensive back every single time, but if the FO think Peterson is a can't miss prospect and they don't feel so sure about the guys on the line then I you can understand why picking Peterson makes sense.

In an ideal world we could trade down a couple of spots and get one but that probably won't happen.

Drek
02-14-2011, 05:16 AM
Nicely written, but all you've really done is made a nicely worded argument for drafting for need.

The typical argument for drafting based on need positions is along the lines of "we need to fill this specific position, lets take the best guy at that specific position".

What Med is saying is that until we put at least one or two legitimate starting DLs (of which we currently have none) on the DL we can't even really play what the better teams in the league call "defense".

You can't use scheme to hide the absolute inability to win even one match up in the trenches. The opposition's line will dominate ours down after down no matter how great the back end of the defense might be.

If the team can fix that issue through FA (likely not happening before the draft this off-season) and find immediate contributors in rounds 2 and 3 while also being sold on Peterson as a head and shoulders talent above the best DL in this class then I'm sure you'd have Med in full agreement on taking him. But thats one hell of an idealized model, seeings how we haven't been able to fix the DL through FA acquisitions in years and 2nd/3rd rounders rarely contribute from day one.

You know who do contribute from day one? Top 5 picks, assuming you didn't pick a bust. So you'd figure if we pick the right DL in the top 5 we'll have at least one quality starter out of the box to work with.

Tombstone RJ
02-14-2011, 09:32 AM
Actually, you are the one who is missing the point. NOBODY disagrees that improving the front seven will be vital to the success of the defense. What a lot of us disagree with is the myopic notion that the #2 pick MUST be DL. As Rev pointed out earlier, the Steelers only have two 1st round picks in their front seven, Timmons and Ziggy Hood, and Hood was only starting due to injury. The key is that the Steelers know their system and aquire talent that fits that system, then do a great job of dveloping them. THAT'S the key, not being gung-ho that #2 MUST be DL. We could draft Fairley and he could turn out to be the next Warren Sapp, but if we fail to aquire and develop talent around him, he will be just as wasted as Champ Bailey has been the last couple of seasons. The same thing is true for Peterson. We need playmakers on this defense at ANY position, and if the staff concludes that Peterson is the best playmaker on defense in this draft and he is available, then they should take him. You're acting like it's a zero sum game, that passing on DL at #2 will make it next to impossible to build a front seven. That is simply false. Like I said, even if we do draft Fairley or Dareus there would still be plenty of work left to do. Get the best defensive playmaker at #2. If that's Peterson, so be it.

well said. the main point here is that while Denver seriously needs to improve the DL (we all agree) the Broncos cannot afford to reach on DL talent in this draft.

Best case scenario is that the Broncos trade down a few spots, acquire more picks and go all out on getting DL talent. However, if the Broncos can't do that, then the next best thing to do is take the top rated defensive player in the draft at #2 and that looks to be Peterson. Then use the other first day picks to get DL talent.

The Broncos just cannot afford to miss on this draft. With the #2 pick, you gotta score and if Peterson is a guy who is big, fast, can play on an island and dominate, loves to hit and can help solidify the secondary, then you take him because he's a another Champ Bailey type of CB. His kind of talent creates a ripple effect over the entire defense.

Champagne Powder
02-14-2011, 09:36 AM
As a sophomore, Bower's number were very comparable to Robert Ayer's senior season with the VOLS. Somthing like 12.5 tackles for a loss, and 4 sacks.

As a sophomore, Bowers missed several games due to a knee injury so those numbers aren't even indicative of his true performance.

StugotsIII
02-14-2011, 11:44 AM
Peterson is a nice player, but Denver's issue is with the front 7, not the back 4.

Denver's run defense was 2nd to last and that won't improve with a cornerback.

Bowers in the first and trade up to get Heyward if he is still there end of the first...

Rohirrim
02-14-2011, 12:03 PM
What has not been considered on this thread is the fun factor. You watch football for enjoyment. In other words, fun. So, what would give the average Broncos' fan more enjoyment, watching Peterson not get thrown on, or watch Fairley smash Phyllis Rivers into paste?

I rest my case. ;D

DrFate
02-14-2011, 12:04 PM
What has not been considered on this thread is the fun factor. You watch football for enjoyment. In other words, fun. So, what would give the average Broncos' fan more enjoyment, watching Peterson not get thrown on, or watch Fairley smash Phyllis Rivers into paste?

I rest my case. ;D

What, Peterson can't blitz? :~ohyah!:

schaaf
02-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Fun factor...

Peterson is also the best return man in the country. Fans love Devin Hester.

LetsGoBroncos
02-14-2011, 01:12 PM
Can someone explain why we aren't picking #2 in round 2? Since when does the order change from the first round to the second?

SonOfLe-loLang
02-14-2011, 01:22 PM
Can someone explain why we aren't picking #2 in round 2? Since when does the order change from the first round to the second?

When teams have the same record, strength of schedule dictates round one...and then it gets flipped for round 2 (im pretty sure)

Carmelo15
02-14-2011, 09:42 PM
What has not been considered on this thread is the fun factor. You watch football for enjoyment. In other words, fun. So, what would give the average Broncos' fan more enjoyment, watching Peterson not get thrown on, or watch Fairley smash Phyllis Rivers into paste?

I rest my case. ;D

If Champ is still here Peterson will get thrown on plenty

Dedhed
02-14-2011, 11:09 PM
If Champ is still here Peterson will get thrown on plenty
And get plenty of INTs.

strafen
02-14-2011, 11:29 PM
If Champ is still here Peterson will get thrown on plenty

That won't be a bad thing at all. More opportunities to make plays :thumbsup:
Like I've said earlier, our paasing defense has notoriously been the weaker part of our defense.
If we can improve there, then we can focus on stopping the run which is what it seems we've done better in the past

Carmelo15
02-15-2011, 02:18 AM
And get plenty of INTs.

Agreed

broncogary
02-15-2011, 06:31 AM
What has not been considered on this thread is the fun factor. You watch football for enjoyment. In other words, fun. So, what would give the average Broncos' fan more enjoyment, watching Peterson not get thrown on, or watch Fairley smash Phyllis Rivers into paste?

I rest my case. ;D

But we'd get to see Peterson more since our defense (:clown:) would never get off the field.

oubronco
02-15-2011, 07:31 AM
And get plenty of INTs.

Wasn't that the assumption last year when McD drafted Cox

TheReverend
02-15-2011, 07:41 AM
Wasn't that the assumption last year when McD drafted Cox

Yup. 5th round pick Perrish Cox hit the Broncos with the same expectations and ability that the most talented football player in the 2011 NFL draft going either #1-3 overall would.

Excellent post.

Old Dude
02-15-2011, 08:51 AM
I'd have no problem with Peterson at #2 so long as they use their next two picks on the D-Line.

maven
02-15-2011, 08:58 AM
As Rev pointed out earlier, the Steelers only have two 1st round picks in their front seven, Timmons and Ziggy Hood, and Hood was only starting due to injury.

Casey Hampton moved to the bench?

TheReverend
02-15-2011, 08:58 AM
I'd have no problem with Peterson at #2 so long as they use their next two picks on the D-Line.

The second second rounder MUST go to MLB, imo. Outside of that selection, I want Paea/Taylor at the first 2nd (one of them WILL be available there), and Peterson/Fairley.

That's a fantastic defensive makeover not including scout rounds and free agency and Fox's system and attitude.

TheReverend
02-15-2011, 09:03 AM
Once again, talking out of your ass.

First of all, they avoid drafting DL in the first round? As opposed to what? They draft tons of DBs in the first round?

Since 2000, they have drafted two defensive linemen in the first as opposed to taking one defensive back. So is that what you call "avoiding?"

Their best defensive lineman is a 7th rounder? Absolutely not. It's Casey Hampton, the former 1st round pick who has five pro bowls behind his name. Keisel has one. So, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And go back and look at how many front 7 guys the Steelers have chosen in the 1st two rounds since 2000 as opposed to DBs. You will clearly see the Steelers don't value DBs high in the draft as opposed to front seven guys.

So in the end, you dont know ****. And that my friend, is the final word.

Settle down on your rage issues bro. And the pro bowl argument was adorable. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a 3-4 DE to get into the pro bowl when theyre being judged against 4-3 DEs piling up sacks?

SonOfLe-loLang
02-15-2011, 09:04 AM
Casey Hampton moved to the bench?

So was James Farrior apparently

TheReverend
02-15-2011, 09:08 AM
So was James Farrior apparently

FA acquisition after he "busted" with the Jets.

maven
02-15-2011, 09:17 AM
FA acquisition after he "busted" with the Jets.

His last season in NY he recorded 145 tackles, 1 sack, and 2 picks. That's a bust or "busted"? Left via FA to Pitt. He's still a 1st round pick amongst their front 7 along with Hampton.

TheReverend
02-15-2011, 09:40 AM
His last season in NY he recorded 145 tackles, 1 sack, and 2 picks. That's a bust or "busted"? Left via FA to Pitt. He's still a 1st round pick amongst their front 7 along with Hampton.

From the Boston globe:

At one point in his career, James Farrior was considered a bust.

The eighth overall pick by the Jets in the 1997 draft, the linebacker out of Virginia did little damage in New York his first four seasons, playing as a part-time starter and averaging just 36.5 tackles a season.

His explosion in 2001, with a career high number of stops (116), was a sign of things to come. But not to the Jets, who released him at the end of the season.

-------------------

He was a reserve OLB playing out of position because the Jets didnt think he could play. It's the SAME reason they didnt even try to resign him. It's the SAME reason Pitt got him for pennies on the dollar.

I liked your assertion of "Doesnt matter he was a first round pick!"

Since that's all that matters, we must have had the best front 7 ever a few years ago when the only players that werent HIGH 1st rounders were Ian Gold and Mike Myers.

Dedhed
02-15-2011, 09:57 AM
And that my friend, is the final word.

Do you need me to repeat how I spot an ignoramus?

Look up these 2 words:

1-Fact
2-Opinion

Dedhed
02-15-2011, 10:01 AM
The second second rounder MUST go to MLB, imo. Outside of that selection, I want Paea/Taylor at the first 2nd (one of them WILL be available there), and Peterson/Fairley.

I agree completely. DJ at MLB is probably the hub of our weakness on defense. We need a real player there. I love Martez Wilson, but not sure he's there with the second of our 2nd rounders.

Although if we deal Orton, we'd have the ammo to get him.

Steve Prefontaine
02-15-2011, 10:05 AM
Casey Hampton moved to the bench?
Hampton - 1st round
Hood - 1st round
Keisel - 7th round
Woodley - 2nd round
Farrior - 1st round
Timmons - 1st round
Harrison - Undrafted

HAT
02-15-2011, 10:33 AM
That won't be a bad thing at all. More opportunities to make plays :thumbsup:
Like I've said earlier, our paasing defense has notoriously been the weaker part of our defense.
If we can improve there, then we can focus on stopping the run which is what it seems we've done better in the past

Your stupidosity never ceases to amaze.

2010: 25th pass D, 31st run D

2009: 3rd pass D, 26th run D

2008: 26th pass D, 27th run D

2007: 7th pass D, 30th run D