PDA

View Full Version : John Lynch: Only a fool or an imbecile believes a great defense starts with the secondary


bronco0608
04-15-2011, 12:02 AM
Not that this isn't something 90% of maners don't already know, but there is a vocal contingent for the contrary. And all this is coming from a soon to be hall of fame defensive back.

Patrick Peterson fanboys, enjoy:

The best way to get better in the back end is to get better in the front end. All the players they have in the defensive backfield will get better when they start getting pressure up front. Patrick Peterson is a great player, but I think they have to finally address the issue up front.



Where I started to see the Broncos unravel was up front. I'm a huge believer that you have to be strong up the middle and up front. When I first came here, we had Trevor Pryce and Reggie Hayward on the D-line and we were looking pretty good. But we lost that talent up front.

I mean, you can play with Hall of Famers in your defensive backfield, but if you don't have talent up front, you can't stop people. I think the Broncos have been putting a band aid on this issue for a long time. It's something that needs to be addressed.

Taking (Auburn defensive lineman) Nick Fairley would be my gut instinct. I know there are some character issues - people say the guy takes plays off - but he just took over that national championship game against Oregon. Just took it over. I played with a guy like that in Tampa - Warren Sapp - and guys like that don't come around very often.


Read more: John Lynch: Ex-Bronco opens up on big hits, Tim Tebow and Nick Fairley - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/fanmail/ci_17835371?source=rsssimplepiebroncos#ixzz1JZX6mi Gc
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-15-2011, 01:12 AM
Not that this isn't something 90% of maners don't already know, but there is a vocal contingent for the contrary. And all this is coming from a soon to be hall of fame defensive back.

Patrick Peterson fanboys, enjoy:








Read more: John Lynch: Ex-Bronco opens up on big hits, Tim Tebow and Nick Fairley - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/fanmail/ci_17835371?source=rsssimplepiebroncos#ixzz1JZX6mi Gc
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

The Peterson people are not going to liiiike this :(

schaaf
04-15-2011, 01:21 AM
I don't think anyone will argue with this. What people will argue is that you can't just take a d-lineman with the #2 overall pick just because you need d-line help. He needs to be a good player. If we were to pick nick fairley and he was a bust our line would be no better and the franchise would be set back years. This is the only thing that people will argue about.

With that said i was pumped that he answered my question!

Swedish Extrovert
04-15-2011, 01:31 AM
This is true, but if you have a weakness at DB, it's worse and more exposed than having a weakness at DE.

listopencil
04-15-2011, 02:16 AM
Yeah, I think most of the people on this board know how important the D-Line is. My fondest wish would be that we picked a DT in the first, a MLB top of the 2nd and a Safety bottom of the second. Then these guys would start immediately, and our Defense would be substantially better. The problem is that we are drafting actual people. We aren't opening the Magic Talent Cupboard Of Unicorns And Rainbows that has everything we need at the spots we have picks. A major part of us having a successful draft will be how well the FO evaluates talent and how much value we can get at each pick.

DrFate
04-15-2011, 04:57 AM
I don't think anyone will argue with this. What people will argue is that you can't just take a d-lineman with the #2 overall pick just because you need d-line help. He needs to be a good player. If we were to pick nick fairley and he was a bust our line would be no better and the franchise would be set back years. This is the only thing that people will argue about

Couldn't be more correct

WolfpackGuy
04-15-2011, 05:39 AM
John must be reading my posts.

The two hand touch rules on receivers in recent years make it hard to justify drafting a DB so high.

In the Broncos case, they should trade down a few spots from 2 while carpet bombing the DL with some of the lesser regarded guys.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 05:49 AM
...I don't think I've read one person who thought "Ignore the defensive line!"

Now, as for which is "more important", with all due respect to Lynch, he's certainly not the Defensive mind that Nolan or Rex Ryan are, and both disagree.

BroncoInferno
04-15-2011, 05:59 AM
For the 80th time, no one disagrees with what Lynch is saying in principle. The debate hinges on getting maximum value at the #2 spot versus picking a DL just because it's a need. Dareus is not a prospect on par with Suh or even McCoy. He was never even a first team all-conference player at Alabama. He dominated a game here and there, but nagging injuries prevented him from playing that way on a consistent basis. Will those nagging injuries clear up at the pro level, thus allowing him to dominate on a game to game basis? Maybe, but it a gamble given the abuse DTs take. Peterson, on the other hand, is the CB version of Suh in this draft. In addition, he's the best punt returner in the draft. You can pencil him in as a top 5 CB for the next decade. Add that with the fact that there is a ton of depth on DL, which will allow us to address the area with top quality prospects in the 2nd, and terrible depth at CB, and there is certainly a reasonable argument to make for Peterson at #2.

Once again in case someone still does not get it.....NO ONE DISAGREES WITH LYNCH. IT'S AN ISSUE OF GETTING MAXIMUM VALUE WITH A TOP 5 PICK.

chrisp
04-15-2011, 06:01 AM
I don't think anyone will argue with this. What people will argue is that you can't just take a d-lineman with the #2 overall pick just because you need d-line help. He needs to be a good player. If we were to pick nick fairley and he was a bust our line would be no better and the franchise would be set back years. This is the only thing that people will argue about.

With that said i was pumped that he answered my question!

Absolutely - when you pick at #2 there's so much cash and cap space tied up by that player that you have to hit on them. Blowing a pick like that can set the franchise back for years.

I think the majority of Peterson backers aren't saying his position is a bigger need for our defense. I don't think anyone one the board would actually say that. They're just saying that Peterson is the only bona fide #2 pick out there.

I'm not sure if I agree, but this draft is absolutley critical. We HAVE to get a pro-bowler with that pick. Now, if we trade down, that's a different story :egbgb:

chrisp
04-15-2011, 06:04 AM
For the 80th time, no one disagrees with what Lynch is saying in principle. The debate hinges on getting maximum value at the #2 spot versus picking a DL just because it's a need. Dareus is not a prospect on par with Suh or even McCoy. He was never even a first team all-conference player at Alabama. He dominated a game here and there, but nagging injuries prevented him from playing that way on a consistent basis. Will those nagging injuries clear up at the pro level, thus allowing him to dominate on a game to game basis? Maybe, but it a gamble given the abuse DTs take. Peterson, on the other hand, is the CB version of Suh in this draft. In addition, he's the best punt returner in the draft. You can pencil him in as a top 5 CB for the next decade. Add that with the fact that there is a ton of depth on DL, which will allow us to address the area with top quality prospects in the 2nd, and terrible depth at CB, and there is certainly a reasonable argument to make for Peterson at #2.

Once again in case someone still does not get it.....NO ONE DISAGREES WITH LYNCH. IN AN ISSUE OF GETTING MAXIMUM VALUE WITH A TOP 5 PICK.

Also, I may be wrong but i don't actually think Lynch used the words "fool" or "imbecile" in that interview, did he?

Jetmeck
04-15-2011, 06:49 AM
John must be reading my posts.

The two hand touch rules on receivers in recent years make it hard to justify drafting a DB so high.

In the Broncos case, they should trade down a few spots from 2 while carpet bombing the DL with some of the lesser regarded guys.

No, the lesser regarded and casted off players from other teams hasnt worked any better than trickle down economics so lets not keep repeating our mistakes. Time to grow a sack and roll the dice on a
stud lineman or two...................

BroncoInferno
04-15-2011, 07:06 AM
No, the lesser regarded and casted off players from other teams hasnt worked any better than trickle down economics so lets not keep repeating our mistakes. Time to grow a sack and roll the dice on a
stud lineman or two...................

Funny that you mention trickle down economics, because that's precisely what the predominant DL theories around here most closely resemble. The strength of a great defensive line will trickle down to rest of the defense, magically transforming mediocre defensive backs into perennial All-Pros. Slow-footed linebackers with poor instincts morph into veritable Junior Seaus. Instead of "the magic of the marketplace," it's "the magic of the fatties." Voodoo defense.

The truth of the matter is that the best defenses have quality players on all three levels, along with solid depth. We certainly need major DL upgrades, but we really need help on all three levels of the defense.

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 07:26 AM
I don't think anyone will argue with this. What people will argue is that you can't just take a d-lineman with the #2 overall pick just because you need d-line help. He needs to be a good player. If we were to pick nick fairley and he was a bust our line would be no better and the franchise would be set back years. This is the only thing that people will argue about.

With that said i was pumped that he answered my question!

This is true. Someone was saying the other day if you pass on Peterson the dropoff to the next group of CB's is huge, but if you pass on Dareus/Fairley the dropoff to the next group of DT's is not so huge.

So it might be worth the gamble to take Peterson, then hope a DT drops to you.

The intriguing thing about Peterson is apparently he's a dynamite return guy to go along with his CB skills. Do you pass on the next Deion Sanders?

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 07:28 AM
No, the lesser regarded and casted off players from other teams hasnt worked any better than trickle down economics so lets not keep repeating our mistakes. Time to grow a sack and roll the dice on a
stud lineman or two...................

Good plan bro. Let's go back through history and look at top 5 selected DT's over the last decade (can skip last year considering Suh was a once in generation player and McCoy should still get the benefit of the doubt after a disappointing rookie season, imo):

08: Dorsey at 5 - Disappointing thus far, high potential for full bust label at this rate
03: Dewayne Robertson at 4 - Bust
01: Gerard Warren at 3 - Bust

That's all the top 5 picks at DT.

None as high as #2 (except for Suh, and if you Dareus is on that level, well lol)

Oh, and all were superior prospects with significantly better production than Dareus.

gyldenlove
04-15-2011, 07:30 AM
...I don't think I've read one person who thought "Ignore the defensive line!"

Now, as for which is "more important", with all due respect to Lynch, he's certainly not the Defensive mind that Nolan or Rex Ryan are, and both disagree.

I don't know how you can say Rex Ryan disagrees with that, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that, his lack of drafting for the front seven has to be considered a result of having 2 multiple pro bowlers on the defensive line and a guy who at the time was a promising prospect in Gholston.

There is some argument about Nolan maybe, but the players he drafted in the 1st round while being a head coach were: 1 QB, 1 TE, 2 LBs, 1 DL.

DrFate
04-15-2011, 07:36 AM
Good plan bro. Let's go back through history and look at top 5 selected DT's over the last decade (can skip last year considering Suh was a once in generation player and McCoy should still get the benefit of the doubt after a disappointing rookie season, imo):

08: Dorsey at 5 - Disappointing thus far, high potential for full bust label at this rate
03: Dewayne Robertson at 4 - Bust
01: Gerard Warren at 3 - Bust

That's all the top 5 picks at DT.

None as high as #2 (except for Suh, and if you Dareus is on that level, well lol)

Oh, and all were superior prospects with significantly better production than Dareus.

I still don't understand why people can't see this. You can't reach on a DT simply because you need a DT. Yes the Denver Dline is poor. Everyone agrees on that. But you can't draft a guy at #2 that would otherwise fall to #15 simply because your DLine sucks. You have to look at the investment and the return and the risk.

HAT
04-15-2011, 07:39 AM
Who DOESN'T want to get better up front?

Couple of DT's with 2a & 2b would be friggin' sweet!!!

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 07:43 AM
This is true. Someone was saying the other day if you pass on Peterson the dropoff to the next group of CB's is huge, but if you pass on Dareus/Fairley the dropoff to the next group of DT's is not so huge.

So it might be worth the gamble to take Peterson, then hope a DT drops to you.

The intriguing thing about Peterson is apparently he's a dynamite return guy to go along with his CB skills. Do you pass on the next Deion Sanders?

The "drop off" from DT? Are you sure there is one?

Corey Liuget from Illinois:

-More playing experience and more production than Dareus

-Great measurables

-Perfect system fit as a 3T penetrator

Voted the #5 overall player in the Big Ten even ahead of Camiri

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/23987/big-ten-rankings-no-5-corey-liuget

All Bowl Team DTs:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/feature/video/_/id/5948937/2010-all-bowl-team

(Spoiler alert: It's Fairley and Liuget)

Dareus is a great PROSPECT... but that's the key word: Prospect.

Brief summary of feelings on Dareus: I won't be upset AT ALL with Dareus in O&B, but I'll definitely be VERY apprehensive if he is due to:

-Position bust rate
-Selecting him at #2 when he doesn't compare favorably to past top DTs
-Position development time in relationship to his minimal playing experience
-His collegiate production and inability to turn heads while actual football was being played

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 07:47 AM
I don't know how you can say Rex Ryan disagrees with that, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that, his lack of drafting for the front seven has to be considered a result of having 2 multiple pro bowlers on the defensive line and a guy who at the time was a promising prospect in Gholston.

There is some argument about Nolan maybe, but the players he drafted in the 1st round while being a head coach were: 1 QB, 1 TE, 2 LBs, 1 DL.

As for Rex, he's credited Revis as the best defensive player in the NFL, and his ability to blitz with the frequency he does in relation to Revis' ability.

As for Nolan, he's done the same. His defensive philosophy is founded on having the coverage to not give up the big play while attacking the offenses with blitz pressure (Since you reference his HC time, he also made Nate Clements the highest paid D player in history at the time)

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/26/1647998/nolans-defensive-philosophy-gets.html

NFLBRONCO
04-15-2011, 07:59 AM
Haven't we had enough NEED type drafts here. I think Peterson is BPA and still believe that is the way we should go. This D needs talent and alot more then just Dareus or Peterson. It would make me feel better about Elway if he shows he can draft the way great drafting teams do. Like to see how we wheel and deal this time.

I'd be cool with Dareus though.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 08:19 AM
Couldn't be more correct

Why do people talk as if Patrick Peterson is a sure thing, but all the D-lineman are complete wild cards. THEY ALL ARE UNKNOWN COMMODITIES

Rohirrim
04-15-2011, 08:24 AM
Take Fairley at #2? Sounds good to me. ;D

I always thought Lynch was a smart man.

BroncoInferno
04-15-2011, 08:28 AM
Take Fairley at #2? Sounds good to me. ;D

Yeah, I am still in the camp that prefers Fairley to Dareus if we go DT. It's strange to me that a guy who never made 1st team all-conference is considered a safer pick than a guy who dominated all season, inlcuding the national championship game. Hell, Fairley produced more sacks and tackles for loss last season than Dareus did his final two seasons combined. Thanks to the (largely) unsubstantiated smear campaign against Fairley, we can probably trade down as low as #7 and still get him.

Rohirrim
04-15-2011, 08:32 AM
Yeah, I am still in the camp that prefers Fairley to Dareus if we go DT. It's strange to me that a guy who never made 1st team all-conference is considered a safer pick than a guy who dominated all season, inlcuding the national championship game. Hell, Fairley produced more sacks and tackles for loss last season than Dareus did his final two seasons combined. Thanks to the (largely) unsubstantiated smear campaign against Fairley, we can probably trade down as low as #7 and still get him.

You never know if the smear campaigns are actually making it onto the scouting boards of teams, though. Some of these guys have been around a long time. They don't pay attention to the media. They do their own due diligence and interviews. From what I saw on a couple of films of Fairley (not game film, but films of him with his teammates) he cares more about the opinions of the guys on his team. Once the ball is snapped, he plays for his teammates. That kind of guy you can always work with.

Taco John
04-15-2011, 08:34 AM
This is true, but if you have a weakness at DB, it's worse and more exposed than having a weakness at DE.

If you have a weak d-line, you have a weak secondary, no matter how good the secondary is.

bronco militia
04-15-2011, 08:37 AM
having the worst rushing defense 2 of the last 3 seasons tells me all I need to know about the secondary.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 08:41 AM
Why do people talk as if Patrick Peterson is a sure thing, but all the D-lineman are complete wild cards. THEY ALL ARE UNKNOWN COMMODITIES

I fully agree with the bolded statement, but this reeks of an ignorant post.

-The draft history for corners shows a trend to make the position a VERY safe selection
-Not only does he have the freak measurables at 220 lbs and 4.3, but has the collegiate production and history to boot:

* 2010 First-Team Walter Camp All-American
* 2010 Thorpe Award Winner
* 2010 Bednarik Award Winner
* 2010 SEC Defensive Player of the Year
* 2010 Preseason All-American (TSN, Playboy, Athlon, Lindy's, Phil Steele)
* 2009 Second-Team All-America (TSN)
* 2009 First-Team All-SEC (ESPN)
* 2009 Second-Team All-SEC (AP, Coaches)
* 2007 High School Defensive Player of the Year (USA Today)

He was a full time starter as a True Freshmen where Dareus couldn't get a starting job until last year.

And let's be honest... If Fairley didn't have character and work ethic questions, he'd be the unanimous #1 DT on the board. So we would be going after the "safe" pick and the unsafest position in the NFL... ^5

Dedhed
04-15-2011, 08:41 AM
The Peterson people are not going to liiiike this :(

I have no problem with it. I agree completely with Lynch, and still hope we take Peterson.

Taking the BPA has nothing to do with the argument of where a great defense starts, and I've said all along that the front 7 needs to be addressed heavily in this draft.

This is nothing more than a dimwit whose been abused in argument after argument taking a sound bite and thinking it makes him a WINNER when all along he's been mistaking the argument for taking the BPA to mean that the DL isn't important.

No one I've seen has ever argued that here.

Dedhed
04-15-2011, 08:42 AM
If you have a weak d-line, you have a weak secondary, no matter how good the secondary is.

...and vice versa

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 08:45 AM
If you have a weak d-line, you have a weak secondary, no matter how good the secondary is.

Strong point

2009 Denver run defense:

128.7 ypg and 4.5 ypc

2010 Denver run defense after upgrading every position along the DL:

154.6 ypg and 4.7 ypc

Solid supporting evidence.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 09:24 AM
I fully agree with the bolded statement, but this reeks of an ignorant post.

-The draft history for corners shows a trend to make the position a VERY safe selection
-Not only does he have the freak measurables at 220 lbs and 4.3, but has the collegiate production and history to boot:

* 2010 First-Team Walter Camp All-American
* 2010 Thorpe Award Winner
* 2010 Bednarik Award Winner
* 2010 SEC Defensive Player of the Year
* 2010 Preseason All-American (TSN, Playboy, Athlon, Lindy's, Phil Steele)
* 2009 Second-Team All-America (TSN)
* 2009 First-Team All-SEC (ESPN)
* 2009 Second-Team All-SEC (AP, Coaches)
* 2007 High School Defensive Player of the Year (USA Today)

He was a full time starter as a True Freshmen where Dareus couldn't get a starting job until last year.

And let's be honest... If Fairley didn't have character and work ethic questions, he'd be the unanimous #1 DT on the board. So we would be going after the "safe" pick and the unsafest position in the NFL... ^5

I dont try to be an NFL scout, but to my untrained eye, i watched the national championship game and saw a DT take over the entire game. I watched Fairley play...probably 4 games this season? and in each one he was completely unblockable. May he be an asshole? Sure. One year wonder? whatever. The man can play football, is clearly a difference maker, and thats the guy I'd pick.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 09:29 AM
Strong point

2009 Denver run defense:

128.7 ypg and 4.5 ypc

2010 Denver run defense after upgrading every position along the DL:

154.6 ypg and 4.7 ypc

Solid supporting evidence.

There are entirely too many variables to boil it down to those basic stats.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 09:29 AM
I dont try to be an NFL scout, but to my untrained eye, i watched the national championship game and saw a DT take over the entire game. I watched Fairley play...probably 4 games this season? and in each one he was completely unblockable. May he be an a-hole? Sure. One year wonder? whatever. The man can play football, is clearly a difference maker, and thats the guy I'd pick.

There's nothing to argue about that statement. I fully agree with what you've said. The concern I have with Fairley is he has glaring character/work ethic question marks at a high % bust position. His impact on the field (though playing time somewhat limited) was absolutely stellar.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 09:30 AM
There's nothing to argue about that statement. I fully agree with what you've said. The concern I have with Fairley is he has glaring character/work ethic question marks at a high % bust position. His impact on the field (though playing time somewhat limited) was absolutely stellar.

Sure, i dont disagree, though i wonder if the work ethic thing is more of a meme than anything. Like, for example, in the national championship game many claimed he was taking plays off when it really looked like he wasjust protecting against a backside option. I dunno, there's always weird smear campagins that come out this time of year, Sapp fell because of one, Randy Moss did too...they turned out ok

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 09:31 AM
There are entirely too many variables to boil it down to those basic stats.

Like losing one of the BEST defensive minds in football who employs a defensive philosophy of blitzing due to solid coverage?

:wave:

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 09:42 AM
Like losing one of the BEST defensive minds in football who employs a defensive philosophy of blitzing due to solid coverage?

:wave:

Sure, among a thousand other things!

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 09:45 AM
Sure, among a thousand other things!

...like?

-Weaker schedule?
-More obvious opponent play selection due to less competitive games?
-Elvis' injury (who has never been strong vs the run)?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 09:59 AM
...like?

-Weaker schedule?
-More obvious opponent play selection due to less competitive games?
-Elvis' injury (who has never been strong vs the run)?

You'd have to factor in game situations/opponent difference/opponent improvement (as would occur within the division)/luck and circumstance/ personnel differences/among a ton of other things.

You know as well as I do football is a game of millions of variables. Theres never a simple explanation to any football statistic because the game, one, deals with 22 people on any single given play not to mention a multitude of variables within any one play, game plan.

bronco0608
04-15-2011, 10:18 AM
The "drop off" from DT? Are you sure there is one?

Corey Liuget from Illinois:

-More playing experience and more production than Dareus

-Great measurables

-Perfect system fit as a 3T penetrator

Voted the #5 overall player in the Big Ten even ahead of Camiri

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/23987/big-ten-rankings-no-5-corey-liuget

All Bowl Team DTs:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/feature/video/_/id/5948937/2010-all-bowl-team

(Spoiler alert: It's Fairley and Liuget)

Dareus is a great PROSPECT... but that's the key word: Prospect.

Brief summary of feelings on Dareus: I won't be upset AT ALL with Dareus in O&B, but I'll definitely be VERY apprehensive if he is due to:

-Position bust rate
-Selecting him at #2 when he doesn't compare favorably to past top DTs
-Position development time in relationship to his minimal playing experience
-His collegiate production and inability to turn heads while actual football was being played

Why in the world do you keep mentioning Liguet as a 2nd or 3rd round pick? He is the 3rd best DT on many boards. Just stop.

If you are talking 2nd round DTs mention legit possibilities like Paea, Austin, and maybe Wilkerson.

Requiem
04-15-2011, 10:20 AM
Your board must blow if you have Wilkerson that low. :)

Can we see your board?

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 10:29 AM
The thing about Peterson is if you pass on him you could potentially be passing on the next Deion Sanders. An INT guy, a return guy, a TD scoring guy, a game changer, and maybe Peterson is a more aggressive tackler than Sanders.

Some of the lower-tier DT's this draft they may not be the three technique DT's, but they have potential. So we'll see what happens, it's gonna be interesting. 13 days til the draft.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 10:29 AM
Why in the world do you keep mentioning Liguet as a 2nd or 3rd round pick? He is the 3rd best DT on many boards. Just stop.

If you are talking 2nd round DTs mention legit possibilities like Paea, Austin, and maybe Wilkerson.

http://www.bertstare.com/bertstare.jpg

Show me where in that post it refers to him as a 2nd or 3rd round pick?

In fact, it's specifically responding to the "drop off" of next tier of DTs after Dareus/Fairley.

Then again, judging from your thread title, you don't comprehend much of what you read, do you?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 10:33 AM
The thing about Peterson is if you pass on him you could potentially be passing on the next Deion Sanders. An INT guy, a return guy, a TD scoring guy, a game changer, and maybe Peterson is a more aggressive tackler than Sanders.

Some of the lower-tier DT's this draft they may not be the three technique DT's, but they have potential. So we'll see what happens, it's gonna be interesting. 13 days til the draft.

And if you pass on fairley you could be passing onthe next Sapp.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 10:34 AM
The thing about Peterson is if you pass on him you could potentially be passing on the next Deion Sanders. An INT guy, a return guy, a TD scoring guy, a game changer, and maybe Peterson is a more aggressive tackler than Sanders.

Some of the lower-tier DT's this draft they may not be the three technique DT's, but they have potential. So we'll see what happens, it's gonna be interesting. 13 days til the draft.

Actually the tier of DT's after Dareus are pretty exclusively 3 techniques where's he's more of a 1/0, but to be fair, he DID show penetration ability as a rotational player his junior year.

-Fairley
-Liuget
-Wilkerson
-Marvin Austin
-Drake Nevis

Where as the 0/NT type fits are more:

-Taylor
-Paea
-Ellis

I think Dareus could fit either role with his size, power, quickness and skill set. I'll never argue that he isn't a great prospect, because I absolutely feel he is. But at #2 I'm wary of his playing history, period.

primetime714
04-15-2011, 10:48 AM
Just trade down. There's no player at #2 that's both worth the pick and a good fit. Trade back to #5 and we could still have at least one of Dareus, Fairley, or Peterson still on the board.

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 10:54 AM
http://www.bertstare.com/bertstare.jpg

Show me where in that post it refers to him as a 2nd or 3rd round pick?

In fact, it's specifically responding to the "drop off" of next tier of DTs after Dareus/Fairley.

Then again, judging from your thread title, you don't comprehend much of what you read, do you?

I believe the guy was thinking Liuget won't be available to Denver in the 2nd round. This thread is geared toward what Denver can get. Connect the dots, Rev.

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 11:09 AM
And if you pass on fairley you could be passing onthe next Sapp.

And that is the gamble at #2. Who do you gamble on? Peterson, Miller, Fairley, Dareus?

It's certainly gonna be interesting to see what EXF does. They have a lot of options, not even considering trading down.

I'd probably gamble on Peterson or Miller at #2 if I had a say. Those two seem to be solid playmakers for a long time, and I'd gamble on picking up a solid if not spectacular DT with the 36, draft a TE with the 48, look to trade up after that and draft some ST guys at LB and S.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 11:14 AM
And that is the gamble at #2. Who do you gamble on? Peterson, Miller, Fairley, Dareus?

It's certainly gonna be interesting to see what EXF does. They have a lot of options, not even considering trading down.

I'd probably gamble on Peterson or Miller at #2 if I had a say. Those two seem to be solid playmakers for a long time, and I'd gamble on picking up a solid if not spectacular DT with the 36, draft a TE with the 48, look to trade up after that and draft some ST guys at LB and S.

Thats my point, its a gamble NO MATTER WHAT

Id obviously prefer to trade down, but i think Fairley is gonna be a stud.

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 11:17 AM
Actually the tier of DT's after Dareus are pretty exclusively 3 techniques where's he's more of a 1/0, but to be fair, he DID show penetration ability as a rotational player his junior year.

-Fairley
-Liuget
-Wilkerson
-Marvin Austin
-Drake Nevis

Where as the 0/NT type fits are more:

-Taylor
-Paea
-Ellis

I think Dareus could fit either role with his size, power, quickness and skill set. I'll never argue that he isn't a great prospect, because I absolutely feel he is. But at #2 I'm wary of his playing history, period.

If you say so that's fine with me. The thing is, who among those three tech's will be available at 36? That's a big question and a legitimate question for those who say just draft the best DT and be done with the issue.

Cito Pelon
04-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Thats my point, its a gamble NO MATTER WHAT

Id obviously prefer to trade down, but i think Fairley is gonna be a stud.

Well, at least the FO has been doing their homework. The FO has been checking out every top guy on the boards. They're into their job.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2011, 11:28 AM
Well, at least the FO has been doing their homework. The FO has been checking out every top guy on the boards. They're into their job.

True, but obviously a huge amount of luck is involved with any of this stuff.

epicSocialism4tw
04-15-2011, 11:41 AM
If the Broncos select anything other than defensive front 7 in the first round of the draft, it will be a monumental failure of such weight that I will begin to question the sanity of John Elway.

The opportunity to fix the problem that has plagued the Broncos since Elway last played has just fallen right into his lap. He gets first shot at the best defensive line player in the draft.

OBF1
04-15-2011, 11:55 AM
Elway is going QB.... what does Lynch know :)

broncocalijohn
04-15-2011, 12:29 PM
This is true. Someone was saying the other day if you pass on Peterson the dropoff to the next group of CB's is huge, but if you pass on Dareus/Fairley the dropoff to the next group of DT's is not so huge.

So it might be worth the gamble to take Peterson, then hope a DT drops to you.

The intriguing thing about Peterson is apparently he's a dynamite return guy to go along with his CB skills. Do you pass on the next Deion Sanders?

If you dont go with Petersen, then I can see no argument for dropping spots down once or twice and pick up draft picks or veterans. I completely understand to not get someone at #2 who isnt a #2 pick guy. That is why we swap out. If we get Petersen, it isnt because he is the best guy available but he is the best guy available at a needed position.
My opinion is if we have the option to trade down from #2, do it.

zdoor
04-15-2011, 05:59 PM
I don't think anyone will argue with this. What people will argue is that you can't just take a d-lineman with the #2 overall pick just because you need d-line help. He needs to be a good player. If we were to pick nick fairley and he was a bust our line would be no better and the franchise would be set back years. This is the only thing that people will argue about.

With that said i was pumped that he answered my question!

Wholeheartedly agree

gyldenlove
04-15-2011, 06:56 PM
Well, at least the FO has been doing their homework. The FO has been checking out every top guy on the boards. They're into their job.

When you have a top 3 pick you need to check out every option thoroughly, if you mess up picking at 11 overall, you are straddled with a contract that is not going to weigh you down too badly and out of the top 10 the probability of getting a real stud is not too high, but in the top 3 the contracts are potentially ruinous and the talent you could miss out on by picking wrong is huge, so you have to turn every stone.

Look at the Browns in 99, picking Couch at number 1, when they could have had guys like Donovan Mcnabb, Champ Bailey, Edgerrin James or Torry Holt.

Since 2000, the DLs who have been picked number 1 or 2 are:

Courtney Brown, Mario Williams, Ndamokung Suh, Chris Long and Julius Peppers.

Williams, Suh and Peppers are all all-pro caliber players and while Long was a bit slower to develop than expected, he is a very capable pass rusher who could become a perennial pro bowler. Brown was an unmitigated failure, but that is not a bad success rate for DLs in the top 2.

TheReverend
04-15-2011, 07:10 PM
When you have a top 3 pick you need to check out every option thoroughly, if you mess up picking at 11 overall, you are straddled with a contract that is not going to weigh you down too badly and out of the top 10 the probability of getting a real stud is not too high, but in the top 3 the contracts are potentially ruinous and the talent you could miss out on by picking wrong is huge, so you have to turn every stone.

Look at the Browns in 99, picking Couch at number 1, when they could have had guys like Donovan Mcnabb, Champ Bailey, Edgerrin James or Torry Holt.

Since 2000, the DLs who have been picked number 1 or 2 are:

Courtney Brown, Mario Williams, Ndamokung Suh, Chris Long and Julius Peppers.

Williams, Suh and Peppers are all all-pro caliber players and while Long was a bit slower to develop than expected, he is a very capable pass rusher who could become a perennial pro bowler. Brown was an unmitigated failure, but that is not a bad success rate for DLs in the top 2.

:devil::cuss::redpunch:

oubronco
04-15-2011, 07:58 PM
You win in the trenches and we haven't won shyt for a long time it's time to fix the problem

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-15-2011, 09:25 PM
I have no problem with it. I agree completely with Lynch, and still hope we take Peterson.

Taking the BPA has nothing to do with the argument of where a great defense starts, and I've said all along that the front 7 needs to be addressed heavily in this draft.

This is nothing more than a dimwit whose been abused in argument after argument taking a sound bite and thinking it makes him a WINNER when all along he's been mistaking the argument for taking the BPA to mean that the DL isn't important.

No one I've seen has ever argued that here.

Personally I'm struggling with who I want more.

On one hand I want Dareus. We have a weak line. I believe in building a defense from front to back. But the field is littered with DL bustes.

On the other hand I want Peterson. He playes CB and in most Drafts the first CB taken has a lot of success. He'e the best in a while. But we have a HOF in Champ and Goodman is pretty good himself. Our real weakness is Dawkins in the pass, and nickel CB.

The thing is I wish there was coaching tape we could look at. Not these stupid highlight vids that show nothing. The other thing is we have lives and we can't dedicated time to comb there every piece of info coming our way.

epicSocialism4tw
04-15-2011, 10:22 PM
When you have a top 3 pick you need to check out every option thoroughly, if you mess up picking at 11 overall, you are straddled with a contract that is not going to weigh you down too badly and out of the top 10 the probability of getting a real stud is not too high, but in the top 3 the contracts are potentially ruinous and the talent you could miss out on by picking wrong is huge, so you have to turn every stone.

Look at the Browns in 99, picking Couch at number 1, when they could have had guys like Donovan Mcnabb, Champ Bailey, Edgerrin James or Torry Holt.

Since 2000, the DLs who have been picked number 1 or 2 are:

Courtney Brown, Mario Williams, Ndamokung Suh, Chris Long and Julius Peppers.

Williams, Suh and Peppers are all all-pro caliber players and while Long was a bit slower to develop than expected, he is a very capable pass rusher who could become a perennial pro bowler. Brown was an unmitigated failure, but that is not a bad success rate for DLs in the top 2.

Long really came on last season. He had a great year.

As for Courtney Brown, I wouldnt ball it an unmitigated failure because he was a useful player when he wasnt injured. Especially for the Broncos.

Rock Chalk
04-15-2011, 10:58 PM
This is true, but if you have a weakness at DB, it's worse and more exposed than having a weakness at DE.

No its not.

A weakness at DB can be covered by a strong front seven that can get pressure on a QB. A weakness at DE cannot be covered by the DB. Not with the rules in place today, and not even Deion could cover the timing patterns and precision routes for 10 seconds.

You could have 2 HOF DBs, 2 HOF safeties and scrubs up front and get completely toasted every single game. They are either going to run all over you or find the weakness in your coverage with mismatches (RBs out of the backfield, TEs in the flat or down the seam). The backfield is good for covering WRs, maybe the TE but they dont stop the run and they cant stop the RB out of the flat.

You build your defense up front. Mike Shanahan proved that over a 10 year stretch here in Denver. He tried to build if from the back and patchwork the front and it failed miserably. Defenses can be gimmicked early but get figured out that way.

Cito Pelon
04-16-2011, 07:14 AM
If you dont go with Petersen, then I can see no argument for dropping spots down once or twice and pick up draft picks or veterans. I completely understand to not get someone at #2 who isnt a #2 pick guy. That is why we swap out. If we get Petersen, it isnt because he is the best guy available but he is the best guy available at a needed position.
My opinion is if we have the option to trade down from #2, do it.

It would be pretty interesting if Denver dropped down twice in round one.

Very possible to do if Denver offers good value to the trade partners. They'd get a lot of volume in terms of picks, but for sure they'd miss out on Peterson, Dareus, Fairley or Miller. They could still get a good DT, DE, CB, QB in round one and DT, LB, TE, S, OT, RB in round 2/3.

Or move BACK into round one after accumulating the picks by moving down twice. Heck, Xanders did that just last year.

I'm not saying it's a great idea, but possible. Just have to wait and see what EFX does. 12 days left and we'll find out.

tsiguy96
04-16-2011, 07:16 AM
It would be pretty interesting if Denver dropped down twice in round one.

Very possible to do if Denver offers good value to the trade partners. They'd get a lot of volume in terms of picks, but for sure they'd miss out on Peterson, Dareus, Fairley or Miller. They could still get a good DT, DE, CB, QB in round one and DT, LB, TE, S, OT, RB in round 2/3.

Or move BACK into round one after accumulating the picks by moving down twice. Heck, Xanders did that just last year.

I'm not saying it's a great idea, but possible. Just have to wait and see what EFX does. 12 days left and we'll find out.

if denver could get another 1st, 2 more 2nds and a few 3rds, i would absolutely be ok with moving down to mid teens or whatever. some great, great players make it to that area.

Dedhed
04-16-2011, 07:23 AM
You win in the trenches and we haven't won shyt for a long time it's time to fix the problem

I agree. However, the point you fail to acknowledge is, drafting Peterson doesn't in any way preclude fixing the problem in the trenches.

Cito Pelon
04-16-2011, 07:49 AM
True, but obviously a huge amount of luck is involved with any of this stuff.

Yeah, I have my fingers crossed, burning incense, trying to channel John Ralston into Elway's mind.

mhgaffney
04-16-2011, 07:51 AM
It doesn't matter where you start.

The important thing is where and how you finish.

Cito Pelon
04-16-2011, 08:18 AM
if denver could get another 1st, 2 more 2nds and a few 3rds, i would absolutely be ok with moving down to mid teens or whatever. some great, great players make it to that area.

Trading 1st-rounders can certainly net a team a boatload of 2nd and 3rd-rounders.

IIRC, NE has been trading their #1's all over the place the last few years, and ended up with 18 picks in the first 4 rounds from 2008-2010 (they ended up with 2 #1's, 8 #2's, 5 #3's, 3 #4's).

HAT
04-16-2011, 08:50 AM
You win in the trenches and we haven't won shyt for a long time it's time to fix the problem

So you're ok with drafting an offensive lineman at #2 this year? Crazy talk.

I'd hope they pick BPA instead of drafting a center, guard or DT for 'the trenches'.

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2011, 11:00 AM
Denver has drafted for need forever and we also have a 90% failure rate can we try something new and go BPA regardless of need a few drafts and see what happens.

I'll gladly take Peterson Dareus but, we still have the same distance to go fixing our problems on D taking either guy.

bronco0608
04-16-2011, 11:51 AM
The problem with all these Peterson fanboys is that they can't even recognize that Dareus has passed Peterson as the top rated player in this draft.

HAT
04-16-2011, 12:10 PM
The problem with all these Peterson fanboys is that they can't even recognize that Dareus has passed Peterson as the top rated player in this draft.

For every link you can provide that shows Dareus as the #1 player on someone's big board......I can provide you with 5 that have Peterson in that slot.

None of that changes the fact that the top 4-5 DT's are similar talents and one of those will be available at 36. Peterson or Miller won't.

Drafting Dareus at #2 will be a bigger mistake than hiring John Fox.....I don't want to see my childhood hero turn into a nutless wonder.

Punisher
04-16-2011, 01:53 PM
Everyone knows a great defense starts with a crazy white Linebacker or a loud black strong linebacker

Agamemnon
04-16-2011, 02:37 PM
Yeah, I am still in the camp that prefers Fairley to Dareus if we go DT. It's strange to me that a guy who never made 1st team all-conference is considered a safer pick than a guy who dominated all season, inlcuding the national championship game. Hell, Fairley produced more sacks and tackles for loss last season than Dareus did his final two seasons combined. Thanks to the (largely) unsubstantiated smear campaign against Fairley, we can probably trade down as low as #7 and still get him.

I prefer Fairley as well. That said Dareus played the inglorious position of 3-4 DE. Stats are not how you measure that position generally. On the flipside though that makes him a complete unknown at 4-3 DT.

Fairley really is the better pick for us, all things considered.

Agamemnon
04-16-2011, 02:40 PM
So you're ok with drafting an offensive lineman at #2 this year? Crazy talk.

I'd hope they pick BPA instead of drafting a center, guard or DT for 'the trenches'.

If our defense wasn't in complete and utter disarray and LT wasn't the strength of our o-line, I'd be down with it.

Rock Chalk
04-16-2011, 03:00 PM
I dont understand. What good is Peterson going to do against QBs like Brady and Manning and Rivers if we can get no pressure up front on them?

None.

If there is a player that looks like he can be a stud up front, you take him over Peterson. We could use Peterson, sure, but we need more help up front far more importantly than we need help in the secondary.

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2011, 05:43 PM
The Peterson people are not going to liiiike this :(
It's been repeated multiple times in here, just because you favour Peterson doesn't mean you favor doing nothing to shore up the front line. Mayock says as many as 9 DE's will go in the first round, plus probably 4 DT's. This is a unique draft for D-llinemen, and taking a once in a decade talent at CB does nor preclude a team that has two #2's from taking D-line help, and if we dump Orton we'll have even more ammo for a trade back up if we want to. It's not like this can be fixed in one draft anyway.

TheReverend
04-16-2011, 05:52 PM
I dont understand. What good is Peterson going to do against Manning

To use the running thread analogy to a "T" and to directly quote the BEST mind in football today ABOUT matching up against Peyton himself:

“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, 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://thejetpress.com/2011/01/10/rex-ryan-calls-darrelle-revis-the-best-in-the-nfl/

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-16-2011, 06:55 PM
It's been repeated multiple times in here, just because you favour Peterson doesn't mean you favor doing nothing to shore up the front line. Mayock says as many as 9 DE's will go in the first round, plus probably 4 DT's. This is a unique draft for D-llinemen, and taking a once in a decade talent at CB does nor preclude a team that has two #2's from taking D-line help, and if we dump Orton we'll have even more ammo for a trade back up if we want to. It's not like this can be fixed in one draft anyway.

You know who I favor the most....the broncos!. If you read my post on page three, you'd know that. I'm like you. Isee the weakness in the d line. But we also have the 2 pick and a place I don't ever want to be again. And we need to pick the person that will make the team better.

Rock Chalk
04-16-2011, 07:09 PM
To use the running thread analogy to a "T" and to directly quote the BEST mind in football today ABOUT matching up against Peyton himself:

“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, 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://thejetpress.com/2011/01/10/rex-ryan-calls-darrelle-revis-the-best-in-the-nfl/
How good is Revis without that front seven? Seriously. Put Revis on any ****ty team and he is exposed as just another CB. You people seem to think we have the Jets front seven and Peterson = Revis. Maybe. But Revis is not Revis playing with Denver last year. I promise you that and Peterson will be no where near Revis playing in Denver next year.

TheReverend
04-16-2011, 07:26 PM
How good is Revis without that front seven? Seriously. Put Revis on any ****ty team and he is exposed as just another CB. You people seem to think we have the Jets front seven and Peterson = Revis. Maybe. But Revis is not Revis playing with Denver last year. I promise you that and Peterson will be no where near Revis playing in Denver next year.

............really?

Did you know the Jets leading pass rusher had 6 sacks?

Or that they only had THREE total players with 5 or more sacks?

Do you know why it is they can bring such diverse blitz packages and have pressure coming from such an assortment of players?

Spoiler: Great coverage on the back end... just ask Rex Ryan. You make a big claim about Revis, he clearly disagrees as evidenced by the quote in the previous post.

My last question:

Do you bother looking up anything to support your opinion before you post it?

Dedhed
04-17-2011, 06:54 AM
............really?

Did you know the Jets leading pass rusher had 6 sacks?

Or that they only had THREE total players with 5 or more sacks?

Do you know why it is they can bring such diverse blitz packages and have pressure coming from such an assortment of players?

Spoiler: Great coverage on the back end... just ask Rex Ryan. You make a big claim about Revis, he clearly disagrees as evidenced by the quote in the previous post.

My last question:

Do you bother looking up anything to support your opinion before you post it?

Great post. Not many people have made any cogent argument against Peterson other than the hyperbole laden "You have to build from the DL" stance.

Broncoman13
04-17-2011, 07:14 AM
My guess right now, if we cannot trade back is Von Miller at #2, Austin and Paea in the 2nd. Paea is falling a bit due to injury concerns.

But I think a trade back is pretty likely. The Broncos would like to add a RT in the draft, Sherrod and Watkins are probably on their board should they get another 2nd this year. I also think Leshoure and Ingram will get some consideration in the early 2nd.

Reason I think they go with Miller first. They know that they need help at LB and after Miller the drop off is pretty significant. DT has a lot more value in this draft. While Dares is getting the most love right now, he does not strike me as a game changer.

tsiguy96
04-17-2011, 08:52 AM
My guess right now, if we cannot trade back is Von Miller at #2, Austin and Paea in the 2nd. Paea is falling a bit due to injury concerns.

But I think a trade back is pretty likely. The Broncos would like to add a RT in the draft, Sherrod and Watkins are probably on their board should they get another 2nd this year. I also think Leshoure and Ingram will get some consideration in the early 2nd.

Reason I think they go with Miller first. They know that they need help at LB and after Miller the drop off is pretty significant. DT has a lot more value in this draft. While Dares is getting the most love right now, he does not strike me as a game changer.

im really starting to buy in to the von miller idea too, its so widely spread that dareus is the pick, but a few times its been reported that miller is very interesting to this team. to read about what he can do, his measurables and everything, it seems like people love the guy and can contribute heavily anywhere in any system.

TheReverend
04-17-2011, 09:05 AM
But I think a trade back is pretty likely. The Broncos would like to add a RT in the draft, Sherrod and Watkins are probably on their board should they get another 2nd this year. I also think Leshoure and Ingram will get some consideration in the early 2nd.

I think trading back is my preference if it's possible.

Being able to slide down a little and still get Peterson, Miller or Dareus and have an extra early 2nd to either use as ammo to make a move for Liuget or to simply be able to grab 3 of Wilson, Austin, Paea, Harris, Dowling, etc truly has NO downside.

NFLBRONCO
04-17-2011, 10:12 AM
I just want (Sapp DT ED Reed) type player at 2 that will upgrade our D. Just adding players that aren't great is where we have been since SB teams. Dareus fills biggest need but, if he turns out to be like G. Warren big deal its not going to make us alot better. None of these guys will get us elite without hitting the jackpot. I always think back to Indy's D they had a very good DL and almost everyone said a healthy Sanders was the key to their D.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2011, 10:17 AM
I just want (Sapp DT ED Reed) type player at 2 that will upgrade our D. Just adding players that aren't great is where we have been since SB teams. Dareus fills biggest need but, if he turns out to be like G. Warren big deal its not going to make us alot better. None of these guys will get us elite without hitting the jackpot. I always think back to Indy's D they had a very good DL and almost everyone said a healthy Sanders was the key to their D.

...you forgot Robert Mathis and that one guy...whats his name. Who is that? Oh yeah...Dwight Freeney.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2011, 10:21 AM
im really starting to buy in to the von miller idea too, its so widely spread that dareus is the pick, but a few times its been reported that miller is very interesting to this team. to read about what he can do, his measurables and everything, it seems like people love the guy and can contribute heavily anywhere in any system.

You know, its funny. When Von Miller began moving up draft boards, alot of people on this site were turned off to the idea of drafting him because he wasnt regularly part of the hype machine before the senior bowl. Now that he has been part of the hype machine, people are generally starting to come around to the idea.

I'm not criticizing you here, because you may very well have been the all-knowing von Miller proponent here, and I don't know. Its just interesting to see how peoples' opinions change given what they are fed by people with media platforms.

All a person had to do to know what Von Miller was all about was to look at his track record. Dude can play. And has been playing for years.

TheReverend
04-17-2011, 10:25 AM
...you forgot Robert Mathis and that one guy...whats his name. Who is that? Oh yeah...Dwight Freeney.

I think you missed his point. Several times it was illustrated that their run D was the worst in the NFL when Sanders was injured, and then vaulted to the top when he returned.

I don't think ANYONE is downplaying Dwight Freeney.

Best opportunity for your argument: Acknowledge Sanders effectiveness, link Freeney's contract (highest paid defender at time of signing) and then link "Colt's release Bob Sanders"

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2011, 10:28 AM
I think you missed his point. Several times it was illustrated that their run D was the worst in the NFL when Sanders was injured, and then vaulted to the top when he returned.

I don't think ANYONE is downplaying Dwight Freeney.

Best opportunity for your argument: Acknowledge Sanders effectiveness, link Freeney's contract (highest paid defender at time of signing) and then link "Colt's release Bob Sanders"

That's cool that you speak for the other fellow and all, but its common knowledge that that defense was built around Dwight Freeney. The Colts believe so too, or else they wouldnt have paid him like it.

TheReverend
04-17-2011, 10:36 AM
That's cool that you speak for the other fellow and all, but its common knowledge that that defense was built around Dwight Freeney. The Colts believe so too, or else they wouldnt have paid him like it.

The defense is actually built around Peyton Manning and their offensive philosophy, if you want to get technical.

They're based off the ability to take a quick lead and put the other team into passing situations. That's why they play such a penetrating front and heavy zones on the back end. Pressure the QB and take the ball away. It's also why they struggle against powerful running teams and teams that can keep the score closer.

Freeney fits that philosophy to a "T" and that's why he's gotten that pay day.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2011, 10:37 AM
The defense is actually built around Peyton Manning and their offensive philosophy, if you want to get technical.

They're based off the ability to take a quick lead and put the other team into passing situations. That's why they play such a penetrating front and heavy zones on the back end. Pressure the QB and take the ball away. It's also why they struggle against powerful running teams and teams that can keep the score closer.

Freeney fits that philosophy to a "T" and that's why he's gotten that pay day.

That's right.

NFLBRONCO
04-17-2011, 10:48 AM
That's cool that you speak for the other fellow and all, but its common knowledge that that defense was built around Dwight Freeney. The Colts believe so too, or else they wouldnt have paid him like it.

Would I like Colts DL here sure I wasn't discounting them at all. I'd also like to add studs on all levels of our D. I'm also not discounting our need to upgrade front 7. Denver needs to hit the jackpot on who ever we pick. Miller turning into Vernon Gohlston and not DT won't help us. Dareus turning into G. Warren instead of Sapp not going to help us much either. Peterson isn't our biggest need position wise but, do think he is best player going in.

NFLBRONCO
04-17-2011, 11:52 AM
The defense is actually built around Peyton Manning and their offensive philosophy, if you want to get technical.

They're based off the ability to take a quick lead and put the other team into passing situations. That's why they play such a penetrating front and heavy zones on the back end. Pressure the QB and take the ball away. It's also why they struggle against powerful running teams and teams that can keep the score closer.

Freeney fits that philosophy to a "T" and that's why he's gotten that pay day.

Great post