PDA

View Full Version : Fox compares Peterson to Rod Woodson


BroncoSojia
04-22-2011, 05:20 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17902847

Broncos coach John Fox has spent much his career in football as a defensive backs coach, in both college and the NFL.
When most of the NFL's head coaches had abandoned the scouting combine in February, Fox was one of the few who attended the defensive backs workouts on the event's last day.
So, he knows plenty about the position.

When asked about LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson, Fox said: "I'll be honest with you, I had Rod Woodson, Gil Byrd, I've had some pretty good guys. I've never seen anything like (Peterson), with that size, that speed. I don't think there's been a 219-pound guy run a 4.3. He's a special talent. That's the way the game's changed, he's about the same height as Rod, but 219 pounds and ran 4.3."

Considering Woodson was in the prime of a Hall of Fame career when Fox was the Steelers' defensive backs coach, that's pretty high praise.
While most people in the league believe the Broncos will select Alabama defensive tackle Marcell Dareus when their first-round pick rolls around Thursday, there is no question that No. 2 overall pick would be their only chance at Peterson.

If they pass on Peterson, they still will almost certainly come away with at least one defensive back in this draft class.
In their search for more youth to infuse into the secondary, the Broncos have spent plenty of time looking at the defensive backs. At corner, the issue is between Peterson and Nebraska's Prince Amukamara — also a top-10 pick — as there is a rather large dropoff at the position after that.

yerner
04-22-2011, 05:30 PM
Draft him then, Fox!

RunSilentRunDeep
04-22-2011, 05:43 PM
Nothing against Peterson, but why do you draft him if you believe in playing a lot of zone?

Drek
04-22-2011, 05:49 PM
Nothing against Peterson, but why do you draft him if you believe in playing a lot of zone?

Because if the ball is thrown near his zone it turns into a pass defense or a pick.

A pick in the hands of the most dangerous collegiate returner in recent history mind you.

teknic
04-22-2011, 05:49 PM
Nothing against Peterson, but why do you draft him if you believe in playing a lot of zone?

Fox also believes in assembling the top talent he can, and to let players make plays. I don't think we're going to see Fox and Allen try to fit players into their scheme, but rather to work the scheme around the players that we have. I'm sure Fox and Allen could put an elite talent like Peterson to good use.

With Peterson, Bailey and Goodman (or possibly Cox) on the back end, I think we'll be able to send an extra rusher or two and get some pressure. Plus, Dawkins could play at the line of scrimmage and wouldn't get burned against the pass nearly as much. Dawkins is still a playmaker against the run and rushing the QB.

Dedhed
04-22-2011, 05:54 PM
Draft him then, Fox!

Amen!

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 06:00 PM
Fox also believes in assembling the top talent he can, and to let players make plays. I don't think we're going to see Fox and Allen try to fit players into their scheme, but rather to work the scheme around the players that we have. I'm sure Fox and Allen could put an elite talent like Peterson to good use.

With Peterson, Bailey and Goodman (or possibly Cox) on the back end, I think we'll be able to send an extra rusher or two and get some pressure. Plus, Dawkins could play at the line of scrimmage and wouldn't get burned against the pass nearly as much. Dawkins is still a playmaker against the run and rushing the QB.

Its better to not need to send an extra guy. Its better to have guys upfront that make that unnecessary.

I cant wait for Champ and Peterson yo start giving up plays and then the people clamoring for Peterson will be blaming the front 7.

KevinJames
04-22-2011, 06:14 PM
Fox had 2 pretty talented DBs in Carolina I think he wants Peterson, but its not his call = /

Rabb
04-22-2011, 06:21 PM
Its better to not need to send an extra guy. Its better to have guys upfront that make that unnecessary.

I cant wait for Champ and Peterson yo start giving up plays and then the people clamoring for Peterson will be blaming the front 7.

I know because after our #2 pick we'd be all finished drafting right?

My God, there is so much damn DT depth to be had and we have 2 2nd round picks to use on just that...I sure would hate to take the best defensive player in the entire draft, and some other DTs that have very little drop off if any from the 1st round guys. That sure would be a fail on us!

gunns
04-22-2011, 06:22 PM
As much as I want DT, DT, DT, this may change my mind. I admired Woodson, second only to Lott, as a DB, and if this kid truly reminds people of him, then maybe we do need to snatch him up. They just better not screw up the DT picks later.

Rabb
04-22-2011, 06:23 PM
As much as I want DT, DT, DT, this may change my mind. I admired Woodson, second only to Lott, as a DB, and if this kid truly reminds people of him, then maybe we do need to snatch him up. They just better not screw up the DT picks later.

yes, totally agree with you there

teknic
04-22-2011, 06:23 PM
Its better to not need to send an extra guy. Its better to have guys upfront that make that unnecessary.

I cant wait for Champ and Peterson yo start giving up plays and then the people clamoring for Peterson will be blaming the front 7.

I'm not suggesting that we neglect the front 7. We can add some pretty good prospects in the second round, or possibly trade back into the first. It's been said time and time again, but this is a deep draft for dline, and from a value standpoint, it doesn't make sense to take Dareus or Fairley at #2 unless the front office is completely sold on one of them. We can also pursue some of the decent front 7 free agents set to hit the market this year.

Lestat
04-22-2011, 06:27 PM
i don't think you can screw up with taking Peterson,Dareus or Miller. it's all about value of the selection and ensuring that you get the best player for your team.

that said, a kid like Dareus is hard to pass up since he would fill a need and allow you to bring in talent later on in the draft at CB. but if you can snag 1st round talent in DT in a Marvin Austin in the 2nd round then Peterson would be an excellent selection.

Chris
04-22-2011, 06:28 PM
I'm not suggesting that we neglect the front 7. We can add some pretty good prospects in the second round, or possibly trade back into the first. It's been said time and time again, but this is a deep draft for dline, and from a value standpoint, it doesn't make sense to take Dareus or Fairley at #2 unless the front office is completely sold on one of them. We can also pursue some of the decent front 7 free agents set to hit the market this year.

Yeah like Daryl Gardener.

RhymesayersDU
04-22-2011, 06:30 PM
I know because after our #2 pick we'd be all finished drafting right?

My God, there is so much damn DT depth to be had and we have 2 2nd round picks to use on just that...I sure would hate to take the best defensive player in the entire draft, and some other DTs that have very little drop off if any from the 1st round guys. That sure would be a fail on us!

I don't follow college football super closely, and I'm especially ignorant to prospects, etc. I've been against taking Peterson because I've been against taking a CB period.

With that said, if what you're saying is true, that there's talent in the 2nd round and we can still address our terrible defensive front 7, then I'd be on board with taking Peterson, I think. Would there be a couple guys in the 2nd we could plug in as starters immediately?

bpc
04-22-2011, 06:33 PM
That's a damn good compliment. I can see it with his talent at CB and return ability. I think he's the best long term investment, that's for sure. DB's can easily play 10-15 yrs.

Lestat
04-22-2011, 06:40 PM
some possibilities are Marvin Austin,Phil Taylor,Stephen Paea,Jurrell Casey,Allen Bailey(some project him as a DE, others DT),Kendric Ellis.
in a perfect world Muhammad Wilkerson will fall but i just don't see that happening. he might end up a top 15-20 selection.

I don't follow college football super closely, and I'm especially ignorant to prospects, etc. I've been against taking Peterson because I've been against taking a CB period.

With that said, if what you're saying is true, that there's talent in the 2nd round and we can still address our terrible defensive front 7, then I'd be on board with taking Peterson, I think. Would there be a couple guys in the 2nd we could plug in as starters immediately?

primetime714
04-22-2011, 06:41 PM
Peterson is probably the best player in this draft IMO. I would not be disappointed if we drafted him even with how bad our front 7 is. This is a rebuilding year anyway adding a difference maker like Peterson is still a step in the right direction as it gives the team more talent to build around for the future. Especially if we throw some 2nd round picks and eventually free agents at the front 7.

Trading down and still getting Peterson would be a dream scenario in my opinion.

Chris
04-22-2011, 06:49 PM
I wonder if there's a chance Cincinatti wants to leapfrog Buffalo for Newton.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 06:54 PM
I know because after our #2 pick we'd be all finished drafting right?

My God, there is so much damn DT depth to be had and we have 2 2nd round picks to use on just that...I sure would hate to take the best defensive player in the entire draft, and some other DTs that have very little drop off if any from the 1st round guys. That sure would be a fail on us!

Right. Because this idea has been so successful. And if there's really that much DT depth, that's more of an argument to take 2 DTs.

Broncoman13
04-22-2011, 06:57 PM
Could be Fox trying to generate some action for a trade to the 2 spot... Could be that Peterson is his favorite player. I think Elways favorite is Peterson as well though. I think X's favorite is Fairley. If they can hook a trade up and drop down to 5, they will have their choice of either one.

Broncoman13
04-22-2011, 06:59 PM
Plus the Broncos have clearly stated they will draft the best player regardless of position.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 07:01 PM
Filing in this in my "No **** Sherlock" folder.

Hulamau
04-22-2011, 07:07 PM
yes, totally agree with you there

Thats my take too. we absolutely MUST fixe the front 7 and DT positions in particular, But at #2 pick we equally must go with BPA. I think both Dareus and even Frailey are gonna be really good solid DTs for years to come and would love to have the best of those two on the team

But I don't see nearly as big a drop off from their talent to some of the other strong DTs we can get in round 2 as I do in the drop from Peterson and even Prince ( both of whom are long gone before the second round at corner in the second round.

Peterson has all the tangibles and intangibles to be a 16 year Stud multi-year Pro bowler in this league.

If they don't go Peterson, I'm leaning Von Miller as the next BPA. In fact, with all the praise Fox and Elway have given Peterson .. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a little diversion to grab Miller??... Although with the 2nd peak we don't need to fool too many teams unless we're trying to trade down a few spots and still grad one of the top two or three BPA's plus an extra second rounder?

I just think we need a major stud for us and a future team leader on Defense ...and Peterson opposite Champ WITH and only WITH insuring MAJOR improvement in the front 7 via round two & three plus FA ... is our best bet long term.

We cant rebuild the entire defense in one year .. not going to happen. But we have made major strides now with a D oriented coach and getting Doom back, Vickerson at one DT spot and a 3rd year Ayers back at his natural position with all the experience now!

Getting some young ALL Pro legs back there opposite Champ with Goodie and Maybe Cox or Squid holding down the nickle and dime and who the hell are opposing QBs going to throw too?? TEs I guess :-)

Suddenly 'Champ-Peterson Island' stretches from sideline to sideline and 40 yard deep!

Any other year without a potential once in 15 years corner in the draft and Im all over Dareus as a lock .. or Von Miller. But the closer I look at Peterson the more I think we could use him. Even if we have to ship in Hanesworth as a FA DT to play next to Vickerson, Doom and Ayers for a couple years while developing a couple of the second rounder DTs to top form?

I just am not sold that either Dareus or Fairley will make as big an impact at DT long term over the next decade as Peterson will at corner, returner and later at safety...!

Rabb
04-22-2011, 07:08 PM
Right. Because this idea has been so successful. And if there's really that much DT depth, that's more of an argument to take 2 DTs.

When was the last time the Broncos went BPA regardless of need?

And to your argument, in my scenario we would take 2 DTs, soooooo

I'd be content with Miller as well, or a trade down for picks and a Fairley for example

I just feel like anyone that passes on PP will look back and be all Ed Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

Broncobiv
04-22-2011, 07:09 PM
Filing in this in my "No **** Sherlock" folder.

Were you the one who made the argument that one of the reasons it's a good idea to take Peterson instead of Dareus/Fairley is the longevity of the position? I don't remember the numbers, but do you have some data about the average lifespan of a DT compared to a CB?

yerner
04-22-2011, 07:11 PM
Thats my take too. we absolutely MUST fixe the front 7 and DT positions in particular, But at #2 pick we equally must go with BPA. I think both Dareus and even Frailey are gonna be really good solid DTs for years to come and would love to have the best of those two on the team

But I don't see nearly as big a drop off from their talent to some of the other strong DTs we can get in round 2 as I do in the drop from Peterson and even Prince ( both of whom are long gone before the second round at corner in the second round.

Peterson has all the tangibles and intangibles to be a 16 year Stud multi-year Pro bowler in this league.

If they don't go Peterson, I'm leaning Von Miller as the next BPA. In fact, with all the praise Fox and Elway have given Peterson .. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a little diversion to grab Miller??... Although with the 2nd peak we don't need to fool too many teams unless we're trying to trade down a few spots and still grad one of the top two or three BPA's plus an extra second rounder?

I just think we need a major stud for us and a future team leader on Defense ...and Peterson opposite Champ WITH and only WITH insuring MAJOR improvement in the front 7 via round two & three plus FA ... is our best bet long term.

We cant rebuild the entire defense in one year .. not going to happen. But we have made major strides now with a D oriented coach and getting Doom back, Vickerson at one DT spot and a 3rd year Ayers back at his natural position with all the experience now!

Getting some young ALL Pro legs back there opposite Champ with Goodie and Maybe Cox or Squid holding down the nickle and dime and who the hell are opposing QBs going to throw too?? TEs I guess :-)

Any other year without a potential once in 15 years corner in the draft and Im all over Dareus as a lock .. or Von Miller. But the closer I look at Peterson the more I think we could use him. Even if we have to ship in Hanesworth as a FA DT to play next to Vickerson, Doom and Ayers for a couple years while developing a couple of the second rounder DTs to top form?

I just am not sold that either Dareus or Fairley will make as big an impact at DT long term over the next decade as Peterson will at corner, returner and later at safety...!

Exactly. You'r on some man ****.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 07:12 PM
Were you the one who made the argument that one of the reasons it's a good idea to take Peterson instead of Dareus/Fairley is the longevity of the position? I don't remember the numbers, but do you have some data about the average lifespan of a DT compared to a CB?

That's ONE of many points I've raised.

-Longevity
-Bust rate
-% of snaps played per game

Not to mention Peterson is heads and shoulders:

-More productive
-Way superior an athlete
-Bigger collegiate impact in general
-Massive impact on ST if staff decides to use him that way

And many, many, many more reasons.

But whatevs

Play2win
04-22-2011, 07:12 PM
Woodson sure seemed to have a hell of a lot more suddenness than peterson does.

Hulamau
04-22-2011, 07:13 PM
When was the last time the Broncos went BPA regardless of need?

And to your argument, in my scenario we would take 2 DTs, soooooo

I'd be content with Miller as well, or a trade down for picks and a Fairley for example

I just feel like anyone that passes on PP will look back and be all Ed Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

I get the same feeling :) But I absolutely am on board with those insisting we need to solidly the front 4 NOW as well. We just cant have it all on one year. And Peterson is simply a more talented football player over all than any of the other top prospects .... Von Miller perhaps in close competition there.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if Miller were the guy either .. nor even Dareus if Elway, Fox and Xman all agree...

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 07:14 PM
When was the last time the Broncos went BPA regardless of need?

And to your argument, in my scenario we would take 2 DTs, soooooo

I'd be content with Miller as well, or a trade down for picks and a Fairley for example

I just feel like anyone that passes on PP will look back and be all Ed Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

Youd be taking 2 DTs in the 2nd. Sorry but front 7 players have greater impact. Where have you been the last 5-6 years where the Broncos are concerned?

Broncobiv
04-22-2011, 07:17 PM
That's ONE of many points I've raised.

-Longevity
-Bust rate
-% of snaps played per game

Not to mention Peterson is heads and shoulders:

-More productive
-Way superior an athlete
-Bigger collegiate impact in general
-Massive impact on ST if staff decides to use him that way

And many, many, many more reasons.

But whatevs
I was genuinely asking, because I am warming up to the idea of going with PP instead of a lineman as long as we're going to get many more years of use out of him. I mean, what is the approximate lifespan of a DT playing at a high level? 6 or 7 years? I don't really know, but if that's the case, then as far as "bang for your buck" goes, PP might be a better pick afterall. It would suck to see your #2 overall pick in severe decline after only 7 years of use (if that number is accurate).

Hulamau
04-22-2011, 07:22 PM
Youd be taking 2 DTs in the 2nd. Sorry but front 7 players have greater impact. Where have you been the last 5-6 years where the Broncos are concerned?

no one is arguing that point. But part of out line woes last year was the lack of ANY pass rush at all. Doom and now Ayers in a 4-3 should bring that .. Vickerson too isn't chopped liver with another year under his belt.

There are MANY top flight front lines with 2nd round DTs who kick ass now. Even if we have to bring in a stub FA DT or three while drafting a couple stolid second rounders now to bring up to speed as fast as they are able, that makes more sense than possibly passing on a stronger and faster version of Ed Reed!

Especially with Champ still here to mentor him as D Green and Prime did for him when Champ was a rookie! Champ isnt going to last forever at corner ...And in this league you MUST have a pass rusher, run stopper and a shut down corner to survive.

Hulamau
04-22-2011, 07:24 PM
I was genuinely asking, because I am warming up to the idea of going with PP instead of a lineman as long as we're going to get many more years of use out of him. I mean, what is the approximate lifespan of a DT playing at a high level? 6 or 7 years? I don't really know, but if that's the case, then as far as "bang for your buck" goes, PP might be a better pick afterall. It would suck to see your #2 overall pick in severe decline after only 7 years of use (if that number is accurate).

Good point ... There are some elite DTs in year 8 and 9 but not many.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 07:27 PM
no one is arguing that point. But part of out line woes last year was the lack of ANY pass rush at all. Doom and now Ayers in a 4-3 should bring that .. Vickerson too isn't chopped liver with another year under his belt.

There are MANY top flight front lines with 2nd round DTs who kick ass now. Even if we have to bring in a stub FA DT or three while drafting a couple stolid second rounders now to bring up to speed as fast as they are able, that makes more sense than possibly passing on a stronger and faster version of Ed Reed!

Especially with Champ still here to mentor him as D Green and Prime did for him when Champ was a rookie! Champ isnt going to last forever at corner ...And in this league you MUST have a pass rusher, run stopper and a shut down corner to survive.

I guess youre also forgetting about the woes at stopping the running game. And until Ayers proves he can get after the passer, he cant. Denver has had Doom healthy for several years and the defense was still awful because it was built back to front. If you dont get someone in the front seven to take help Doom, you could easily see him neutralized more and more. Its not safe to assume he's going to have 18 sacks again.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 07:51 PM
I was genuinely asking, because I am warming up to the idea of going with PP instead of a lineman as long as we're going to get many more years of use out of him. I mean, what is the approximate lifespan of a DT playing at a high level? 6 or 7 years? I don't really know, but if that's the case, then as far as "bang for your buck" goes, PP might be a better pick afterall. It would suck to see your #2 overall pick in severe decline after only 7 years of use (if that number is accurate).

I highly doubt someone has gone over the exact figures or found out a way to quantify it, but it's akin to RB wear and tear. There are definitely exceptions, but guys like Warren Sapp who can play dominant for a decade are insanely rare at DT.

You can nab a Kevin Williams and have a guy who's only missed 2 games in an 8 year career with 5 all pros, one as recently as 2009.

You can nab a Tommie Harris who hasn't started a full season since 2005... coincidentally his only all pro.

You can nab a "can't miss" like Gerard Warren (#3 overall) and have a guy who's still starting in the NFL, but a major disappointment... to multiple teams.

Or, on the downside... you can get a :

Dwayne Robertson 4
Johnathan Sullivan 6
Jimmy Kennedy 12
Ryan Sims 6

Meh. Quite frankly most of the "best DTs in the NFL" have only had a couple of really good years. Guys like Rogers, Stroud, Jenkins, etc have had 2-3 years of really good football and the better of the decade of "where are they?"

Don't quite get that same experience with a Champ, either Woodson, or even down to a lower tier guy like Winfield.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 08:07 PM
Youd be taking 2 DTs in the 2nd. Sorry but front 7 players have greater impact. Where have you been the last 5-6 years where the Broncos are concerned?

Definitely. That's why in the past decade the NFL defensive MVP award has gone to:

4 DBs
4 LBs
2 DL (zero DTs, btw)

Btw... when you consider that the 2006 award should've gone to Champ and not Jason Taylor in one of the biggest screw jobs in NFL history, it SHOULD look like this:

5 DBs
4 LBs
1 DL

Tell me more about that defensive impact though, bro.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 08:15 PM
Definitely. That's why in the past decade the NFL defensive MVP award has gone to:

4 DBs
4 LBs
2 DL (zero DTs, btw)

Btw... when you consider that the 2006 award should've gone to Champ and not Jason Taylor in one of the biggest screw jobs in NFL history, it SHOULD look like this:

5 DBs
4 LBs
1 DL

Tell me more about that defensive impact though, bro.



Ha! Flawed response. Im guessing the 4 DBs are some combination of Reed, Polamalu, and revis. All of those teams were strong in the front 7.

And since you bring up Champ, how many INTs did Denver's secondary have (one that had Champ) in 2008? You're putting too much stock in awards that are given by people who have a tendency to focus on who ends up with the ball and not on what happens in the trenches.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 08:24 PM
Ha! Flawed response. Im guessing the 4 DBs are some combination of Reed, Polamalu, and revis. All of those teams were strong in the front 7.

No, Revis has never been DPOY. Reed, Polamalu, Sanders and Woodson. Great of you to try and minimize their HoF accomplishments (except Sanders) by attributing it elsewhere.

Seriously, that's stellar stuff.

And since you bring up Champ, how many INTs did Denver's secondary have (one that had Champ) in 2008? You're putting too much stock in awards that are given by people who have a tendency to focus on who ends up with the ball and not on what happens in the trenches.

5... are you trying to reinforcement part of my point that a terrible secondary that's missing it's best player for half the season with injury helps create a horrible defensive unit?

Requiem
04-22-2011, 08:28 PM
The only potential problem in selecting Peterson is that it is very well likely Denver doesn't land one of it's top ten DL prospects by the time #36 rolls around unless they trade up.

That means we consider the following options between #36, #46 and #67 on the DL.

DT: Austin, Nevis, Ballard, Casey, Jenkins, Ellis
DE: Heyward, Bailey, Sheard, Moch (OLB/DE hybrid)

Yes, that means I believe Taylor, Paea and Wilkerson are projected by me to go before #36.

I wouldn't consider Austin on that list. Seems like the Broncos are doing their homework on him. I think Nevis would be an excellent 3 technique. Ballard is an interesting and versatile player, but I think he'll be an average pro. Casey probably needs another year of development. I think Jenkins is interesting, and quality at #67. Don't know a whole lot about Ellis, other than he's a controversial prospect.

I like Heyward or Bailey as LE's on this team, I think Heyward will be the better player, Bailey has a lot more potential. Best values at #36 on the DL, IMHO.

Sheard and Moch will likely be given long looks by Denver because they're quick players off the edge, can get sacks and TFL. I think their value is between our second 2nd rounder and our third rounder.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 08:39 PM
No, Revis has never been DPOY. Reed, Polamalu, Sanders and Woodson. Great of you to try and minimize their HoF accomplishments (except Sanders) by attributing it elsewhere.

Seriously, that's stellar stuff.

You shouldnt even be including Deion or Woodson in this. They played during a different era. The rules have changed so much that its significantly affected how DBs can play defense. Thats not even apples to apples anymore.


5... are you trying to reinforcement part of my point that a terrible secondary that's missing it's best player for half the season with injury helps create a horrible defensive unit?

Is reinforcement a verb?

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 08:41 PM
The only potential problem in selecting Peterson is that it is very well likely Denver doesn't land one of it's top ten DL prospects by the time #36 rolls around unless they trade up.

That means we consider the following options between #36, #46 and #67 on the DL.

DT: Austin, Nevis, Ballard, Casey, Jenkins, Ellis
DE: Heyward, Bailey, Sheard, Moch (OLB/DE hybrid)

Yes, that means I believe Taylor, Paea and Wilkerson are projected by me to go before #36.

I wouldn't consider Austin on that list. Seems like the Broncos are doing their homework on him. I think Nevis would be an excellent 3 technique. Ballard is an interesting and versatile player, but I think he'll be an average pro. Casey probably needs another year of development. I think Jenkins is interesting, and quality at #67. Don't know a whole lot about Ellis, other than he's a controversial prospect.

I like Heyward or Bailey as LE's on this team, I think Heyward will be the better player, Bailey has a lot more potential. Best values at #36 on the DL, IMHO.

Sheard and Moch will likely be given long looks by Denver because they're quick players off the edge, can get sacks and TFL. I think their value is between our second 2nd rounder and our third rounder.

Thats far from the only problem but its a huge concern and a totally valid point. Theyre talking about a run on DTs similar to what was seen in the Clady draft a few years ago, where no one thought Duane Brown would be selected in the first round. Theyre talking about the same thing with DTs this year and considering the importence of defensive line, it would be foolish to not expect it.

orange crusher
04-22-2011, 08:49 PM
The title is a bit misleading. Nowhere in the article does he compare Peterson to Woodson, except for in height.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 08:52 PM
The only potential problem in selecting Peterson is that it is very well likely Denver doesn't land one of it's top ten DL prospects by the time #36 rolls around unless they trade up.

That means we consider the following options between #36, #46 and #67 on the DL.

DT: Austin, Nevis, Ballard, Casey, Jenkins, Ellis
DE: Heyward, Bailey, Sheard, Moch (OLB/DE hybrid)

Yes, that means I believe Taylor, Paea and Wilkerson are projected by me to go before #36.

I wouldn't consider Austin on that list. Seems like the Broncos are doing their homework on him. I think Nevis would be an excellent 3 technique. Ballard is an interesting and versatile player, but I think he'll be an average pro. Casey probably needs another year of development. I think Jenkins is interesting, and quality at #67. Don't know a whole lot about Ellis, other than he's a controversial prospect.

I like Heyward or Bailey as LE's on this team, I think Heyward will be the better player, Bailey has a lot more potential. Best values at #36 on the DL, IMHO.

Sheard and Moch will likely be given long looks by Denver because they're quick players off the edge, can get sacks and TFL. I think their value is between our second 2nd rounder and our third rounder.

I definitely used to be in your same boat on Marvin Austin and would've hated even considering him before the 3rd round.

...........but I've been watching a lot of 2009 North Carolina games for him and Quinn, and they're just both really, REALLY ****ing good.

And it's easy for me considering I think the NCAA's rules are stupid.

Otherwise:

I can Liuget going in the first for talent.

I can see Taylor going in the first for need reach to a 3-4.

I can KINDA see Wilkerson going in the first on athleticism (or Carolina to start the 2nd if they dont go DT early)

...but I CANT see Paea... and if he does, itll definitely push one of the above to 36.

There are some great fits at the back of the first where these guys COULD go at other positions...

At OT: Castonzo, Camiri, Solder, Sherrod
Pass rushers like: Kerrigan, Smith, Clayborn and Heyward

And teams usually get a boner for IOL at the back of the first so Pouncey and Watkins should help us out there.

Not to mention one of those teams will feel it has the locker room to support a Jimmy Smith.

Add in a need reach here and there for a LB like Wilson or Ayers

And let's not forget the INEVITABLE start of the 2nd round QB surge for guys like Ponder by the teams ahead of us that didn't select Gabbert or Newton.

And we should have 2 of the guys you mentioned available at 36, IMO and hopefully an Austin with 2b

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 08:55 PM
You shouldnt even be including Deion or Woodson in this. They played during a different era. The rules have changed so much that its significantly affected how DBs can play defense. Thats not even apples to apples anymore.

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

BOB sanders and CHARLES woodson you retard.

Do you watch football?

Is reinforcement a verb?

Using a typo to dodge the point. Bravo.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 08:59 PM
http://www.bertstare.com/bertstare.jpg

BOB sanders and CHARLES woodson you retard.

Sorry, I thought you meant the other guys. I dont have this stuff memorized. Nevertheless, the point still remains. All of those guys played on teams with competent front 7s.

Do you watch football?

Yeah


Using a typo to dodge the point. Bravo.

Stop pretending like it was especially insightful. Im bored with what you're doing. I rely on levity to keep myself entertained.

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 09:05 PM
Sorry, I thought you meant the other guys. I dont have this stuff memorized. Nevertheless, the point still remains. All of those guys played on teams with competent front 7s.

Yeah

Stop pretending like it was especially insightful. Im bored with what you're doing. I rely on levity to keep myself entertained.

That's you thought Deion or ROD Woodson won a DPOY this decade, huh?

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 09:28 PM
That's you thought Deion or ROD Woodson won a DPOY this decade, huh?

It's not like I hang on your every word. I didn't really read it that closely. I did mention how I'm bored with what you're doing, no?

TheReverend
04-22-2011, 09:48 PM
It's not like I hang on your every word. I didn't really read it that closely. I did mention how I'm bored with what you're doing, no?

I'd be "bored" if my point were absolutely demolished immediately here too:

Definitely. That's why in the past decade the NFL defensive MVP award has gone to:

4 DBs
4 LBs
2 DL (zero DTs, btw)

Btw... when you consider that the 2006 award should've gone to Champ and not Jason Taylor in one of the biggest screw jobs in NFL history, it SHOULD look like this:

5 DBs
4 LBs
1 DL

Tell me more about that defensive impact though, bro.

And especially "bored" if every subsequent post I tried to make made no sense, was factually absurd, and embarrassing.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 09:53 PM
I'd be "bored" if my point were absolutely demolished immediately here too:



And especially "bored" if every subsequent post I tried to make made no sense, was factually absurd, and embarrassing.

Pass me some of what you're smoking. I'm sure you're an awesome imaginary champion. I'll let you go fondle your imaginary belt.

Dedhed
04-22-2011, 09:55 PM
You shouldnt even be including Deion or Woodson in this. They played during a different era. The rules have changed so much that its significantly affected how DBs can play defense. Thats not even apples to apples anymore.

Wow you're a tool.

OrangeSe7en
04-22-2011, 09:56 PM
Wow you're a tool.

Perhaps. If that's true, I'm your shank.

listopencil
04-22-2011, 09:58 PM
Man, this discussion again. If Peterson really is that good then they should take him. Period. You don't pass up that kind of talent, and we have two picks in the 2nd to get D-Line/LB help. If he's not an elite player than they should grab a DT. Fairley or Dareus.

You also have a LB, Miller, who looks very good. He might be as good at LB as Peterson looks at CB. I don't know. I really don't like taking what looks like an outside linebacker at #2 overall. If the Broncos trade down and take him I wouldn't be too pissed off I guess.

As far as the length of players' careers according to position, yes there is a link. More physical contact makes a shorter career and the one taking the hits is even shorter still. So you have kickers at one end and running backs at the other. DB's are closer to kickers and DT's/LB's are closer to RB's.

Dedhed
04-22-2011, 10:00 PM
The title is a bit misleading. Nowhere in the article does he compare Peterson to Woodson, except for in height.
Re-read. In the first part of the quote he says "I'll be honest with you, I had Rod Woodson, Gil Byrd, I've had some pretty good guys. I've never seen anything like (Peterson).

That is absolutely a comparison. He mentions Peterson's height being the same as Rod's in the 2nd part of the quote.

listopencil
04-22-2011, 10:09 PM
Were you the one who made the argument that one of the reasons it's a good idea to take Peterson instead of Dareus/Fairley is the longevity of the position? I don't remember the numbers, but do you have some data about the average lifespan of a DT compared to a CB?

It wasn't my point, and it's not why I was leaning towards Peterson, but it's true. I think you can get the data from the keywords in my post:


Yes, there is. You can google it and get results that will tell you that it goes from Kickers/Punters/Long Snappers at the top all the way down to Running Backs for career length. It's easy data to track. Length of career is directly related to position even more so than injury history. Generally speaking the more contact a position endures, the shorter the career. With weight given to who is doing the hitting and who is being hit. There was a paper done by Milt Davis (PhD) and Pat Lombardi (PhD) and presented to the 56th Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) back in 2009. It tracks players from the 2004 combine to the 2008 season and it corroborates the NFL data.

maher_tyler
04-22-2011, 10:14 PM
Honestly...if we took him i wouldn't be upset but i'd rather go D line...i'd rather have a dominate D line than a dominate secondary...

listopencil
04-22-2011, 10:18 PM
Honestly...if we took him i wouldn't be upset but i'd rather go D line...i'd rather have a dominate D line than a dominate secondary...

I'd rather have a dominant D.

Hulamau
04-23-2011, 12:32 AM
I guess youre also forgetting about the woes at stopping the running game. And until Ayers proves he can get after the passer, he cant. Denver has had Doom healthy for several years and the defense was still awful because it was built back to front. If you dont get someone in the front seven to take help Doom, you could easily see him neutralized more and more. Its not safe to assume he's going to have 18 sacks again.

NOPE, I'm not forgetting a thing my friend. ...please read more carefully what I've said in EVERY post about Peterson! ... I'm for taking him IF and only IF they make a total commitment to solidifying the two DT spots as well in both the 2nd and or 3rd rounds and FA ...

We need a new linebacker and at least one safety as well as a corner, a TE a RB and a RT as a bare minimum! WE are NOT going to get it all this year....

There are solid DT prospects in this second round, several that would be first rounders in most other draft years.

Let me ask you this OrangeSe7en ... do you seriously think Fox is going to start the season with only the DTs on our current roster??

Of course, we'd all love to have Dareus and perhaps even Fairley and perhaps we wind up going that way? .. I'm okay with it if the new FO consensus is that is the best move after all their deliberations.

But we can still make major improvements to the D-line while grabbing most likely the BPA in this years draft, add a linebacker or TE, grab Peterson as a certified stud for 15 years and a RB , not to mention FA as step one in rebuilding this D.

If we can make a 50% improvement in on field performance on D this year .. which is likely to be an ***Asterisk*** year anyway ... and more or less finish loading-up on D next year, with a couple picks on Offense thrown in for good measure, we should be alright and competitive again for the division at least.

Assuming Tebow pans out that is? If Tim starts and truly doesn't cut it this year, I can almost guarantee Dareus isn't going to make any more difference this year than Peterson will to out outcome and we'll likely be picking vyer high again next year possibly with a shot at Luck...

In any event, no one here is talking about ignoring and forgetting the major holes we have on the front 7 so chill out and get real, every choice this year will be only a step, hopefully in the right direction, not a final solution.

If we stay at #2, I doubt we will get anything but a superb player for years to come among the likely guys in the top 5 or so ... whoever they pick.

fdf
04-23-2011, 01:47 AM
I guess youre also forgetting about the woes at stopping the running game. And until Ayers proves he can get after the passer, he cant. Denver has had Doom healthy for several years and the defense was still awful because it was built back to front. If you dont get someone in the front seven to take help Doom, you could easily see him neutralized more and more. Its not safe to assume he's going to have 18 sacks again.

Actually, our defense fell apart when Al Wilson got injured. Aside from 6 exciting games year before last, the Broncos have had a pathetic D since then.

As we are going back to a 4-3, it seems to me that MLB is a position that makes a big difference right away and we are pretty weak there.

gunns
04-23-2011, 01:51 AM
I highly doubt someone has gone over the exact figures or found out a way to quantify it, but it's akin to RB wear and tear. There are definitely exceptions, but guys like Warren Sapp who can play dominant for a decade are insanely rare at DT.

You can nab a Kevin Williams and have a guy who's only missed 2 games in an 8 year career with 5 all pros, one as recently as 2009.

You can nab a Tommie Harris who hasn't started a full season since 2005... coincidentally his only all pro.

You can nab a "can't miss" like Gerard Warren (#3 overall) and have a guy who's still starting in the NFL, but a major disappointment... to multiple teams.

Or, on the downside... you can get a :

Dwayne Robertson 4
Johnathan Sullivan 6
Jimmy Kennedy 12
Ryan Sims 6

Meh. Quite frankly most of the "best DTs in the NFL" have only had a couple of really good years. Guys like Rogers, Stroud, Jenkins, etc have had 2-3 years of really good football and the better of the decade of "where are they?"

Don't quite get that same experience with a Champ, either Woodson, or even down to a lower tier guy like Winfield.

If Peterson is as good as projected then I have no problem taking him. I'd prefer a dominant safety for the Broncos but that's not a top pick. I'm leaning towards DL now because, yes together with Champ they'll be lethal but if we don't start getting pressure up front it may be for naught. That being said I do have a problem with you not answering the guys question legitimately, while trying to put a spin on taking the DB position. There are good defensive line guys who have played a number of years with comparatively little time missed.
Vince Wilfork 7 yrs
Pat Williams 14 yrs
Kevin Williams 8 yrs
Richard Seymour 10 yrs
LaRoi Glover 12 yrs
Jamal Williams 13 yrs
Shaun Rogers 10 yrs
Trevor Pryce 14 yrs
and theres more

As far as defensive awards a defensive lineman is like an offensive lineman...not given the credit for what they do and rarely in the limelight. They are the anchor of the defense and without them you have....well...the Denver Broncos. If Peterson is who they pick, I'll be fine, in fact I'll be happy. But don't misrepresent by naming the ones that suck because that's just as easy with a DB.

ghostofjosh
04-23-2011, 03:30 AM
Because if the ball is thrown near his zone it turns into a pass defense or a pick.

A pick in the hands of the most dangerous collegiate returner in recent history mind you.

We have had the greatest corner in the nfl the last 7 years and it doesnt mean crap without a pass rush

elsid13
04-23-2011, 03:57 AM
He’s one of those rare corners who can come in and be a very, very high pick,’’ said Titans coach Mike Munchak. “You saw what happened with the Jets and the guys they have and how important it is to have a guy [Darrelle Revis] who can take the best receiver and shut that guy down.

“We interviewed [Peterson] for 15 minutes at the combine. This guy seems special, listening to him talk about his trade and his mind-set and how he plays different coverages. He’s going to be a special player.’’


http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2011/04/23/petersons_stock_through_the_roof/?page=1

Drek
04-23-2011, 04:22 AM
We have had the greatest corner in the nfl the last 7 years and it doesnt mean crap without a pass rush

Except that crazy 2005 season where our mediocre at best front seven got us all the way to the AFCC.

Since then we haven't consistently put even league average quality starters on the field at over half of our defensive positions. No one player can overcome that.

Doom was a sack monster in 2009, didn't stop our defense from falling apart the last ten games. The Vikings have an all world front four. Didn't carry them to much this season.

Defense is 11 guys getting a single job done.

And FYI, I'm a big Dareus fan. I was just answering the question of "why would you take Peterson if you're going to play zone?" Because in Zone a guy like Peterson gets a lot of opportunities to read and react to the QB, leading to game changing turnovers. By the same "don't need elite corners for zone coverage" you'd wonder why we resigned Champ. But isn't it entirely possible that someone like Champ will only flourish in a system that has let middling athletes with good field awareness break double digits in INTs?

Allen comes from a defense where the philosophy has been hit the QB hard and force him into turnovers. Champ and Peterson at the corner positions maximize the frequency of bad passes becoming INTs, and also at the same time greatly increases the chance that those INTs become touchdowns.

tsiguy96
04-23-2011, 06:08 AM
Except that crazy 2005 season where our mediocre at best front seven got us all the way to the AFCC.

Since then we haven't consistently put even league average quality starters on the field at over half of our defensive positions. No one player can overcome that.

Doom was a sack monster in 2009, didn't stop our defense from falling apart the last ten games. The Vikings have an all world front four. Didn't carry them to much this season.

Defense is 11 guys getting a single job done.

And FYI, I'm a big Dareus fan. I was just answering the question of "why would you take Peterson if you're going to play zone?" Because in Zone a guy like Peterson gets a lot of opportunities to read and react to the QB, leading to game changing turnovers. By the same "don't need elite corners for zone coverage" you'd wonder why we resigned Champ. But isn't it entirely possible that someone like Champ will only flourish in a system that has let middling athletes with good field awareness break double digits in INTs?

Allen comes from a defense where the philosophy has been hit the QB hard and force him into turnovers. Champ and Peterson at the corner positions maximize the frequency of bad passes becoming INTs, and also at the same time greatly increases the chance that those INTs become touchdowns.

do you see miller as a fit in a 4-3 that justifies such a high selection? seems to be a "who you ask" type of thing, but the guy appears versatile.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 07:14 AM
NOPE, I'm not forgetting a thing my friend. ...please read more carefully what I've said in EVERY post about Peterson! ... I'm for taking him IF and only IF they make a total commitment to solidifying the two DT spots as well in both the 2nd and or 3rd rounds and FA ...
We need a new linebacker and at least one safety as well as a corner, a TE a RB and a RT as a bare minimum! WE are NOT going to get it all this year....

There are solid DT prospects in this second round, several that would be first rounders in most other draft years.

Let me ask you this OrangeSe7en ... do you seriously think Fox is going to start the season with only the DTs on our current roster??

Of course, we'd all love to have Dareus and perhaps even Fairley and perhaps we wind up going that way? .. I'm okay with it if the new FO consensus is that is the best move after all their deliberations.

But we can still make major improvements to the D-line while grabbing most likely the BPA in this years draft, add a linebacker or TE, grab Peterson as a certified stud for 15 years and a RB , not to mention FA as step one in rebuilding this D.

If we can make a 50% improvement in on field performance on D this year .. which is likely to be an ***Asterisk*** year anyway ... and more or less finish loading-up on D next year, with a couple picks on Offense thrown in for good measure, we should be alright and competitive again for the division at least.

Assuming Tebow pans out that is? If Tim starts and truly doesn't cut it this year, I can almost guarantee Dareus isn't going to make any more difference this year than Peterson will to out outcome and we'll likely be picking vyer high again next year possibly with a shot at Luck...

In any event, no one here is talking about ignoring and forgetting the major holes we have on the front 7 so chill out and get real, every choice this year will be only a step, hopefully in the right direction, not a final solution.

If we stay at #2, I doubt we will get anything but a superb player for years to come among the likely guys in the top 5 or so ... whoever they pick.

That thinking is what has been part of the problem: "We can take care of DT later". If this is a stellar defensive tackle class, we simply cannot afford to miss out on getting a guy who is a player. Theyre talking about 15 DL going in the first round possibly. We simply cant afford to miss out by using the failed back to front approach that I referenced.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 07:18 AM
Actually, our defense fell apart when Al Wilson got injured. Aside from 6 exciting games year before last, the Broncos have had a pathetic D since then.

As we are going back to a 4-3, it seems to me that MLB is a position that makes a big difference right away and we are pretty weak there.

If you can get a good Dline, you can get by with an average or decent MLB. You can upgrade the MLB later but when you have a chance to take one and possibly two good defensive linemen, its pretty unforgiveable not to.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-23-2011, 07:24 AM
I guess youre also forgetting about the woes at stopping the running game. And until Ayers proves he can get after the passer, he cant. Denver has had Doom healthy for several years and the defense was still awful because it was built back to front. If you dont get someone in the front seven to take help Doom, you could easily see him neutralized more and more. Its not safe to assume he's going to have 18 sacks again.

Holy ****, man. I guess you're forgetting that we have more than just the number two pick in the draft. I guess you don't realize that taking Peterson doesn't mean we are "ignoring" the front seven.

I guess you're not very smart.

ICON
04-23-2011, 07:24 AM
Draft him then, Fox!Patrick Peterson has football in his genes,Bryant McFadden, Oakland cornerback Walter McFadden, Washington wide receiver Santana Moss and Philadelphia receiver Sinorice Moss are cousins.

He can return kicks, he can return punts, he can play safety, nickel and corner. He's 220 or 219 pounds, and he's faster than Julio and faster than A.J. And Peterson can tackle. He's a great tackler in open space. Two years ago in Baton Rouge I saw him make two or three plays where it was just Peterson and Tim Tebow one-on-one on the perimeter, and [Peterson] made the plays that no one ever makes. Usually Tebow just bulled over and ran through people, but Peterson took him down by himself every time.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/4001436728_231649decb.jpg
But will Tebow forgive PP for forsaking him?

Patrick Peterson and Tim Tebow Photo stream http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Patrick+Peterson/Tim+Tebow

HAT
04-23-2011, 07:26 AM
Has 0608 been talked down from the ledge yet?

Thursday can't get here soon enough.

elsid13
04-23-2011, 07:28 AM
Has 0608 been talked down from the ledge yet?

Thursday can't get here soon enough.

Why would we want to do that? It far more entertaining the way he is now.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-23-2011, 07:34 AM
Could be Fox trying to generate some action for a trade to the 2 spot... Could be that Peterson is his favorite player. I think Elways favorite is Peterson as well though. I think X's favorite is Fairley. If they can hook a trade up and drop down to 5, they will have their choice of either one.

I don't know, it seems like there's pretty much a consensus that PP is the most talented player in the draft. The only thing possibly knocking him down boards is that corners don't go that high, on the flip side, I could see anyone in the Top 5 taking him because he is the talent of the draft.

elsid13
04-23-2011, 07:36 AM
If you can get a good Dline, you can get by with an average or decent MLB. You can upgrade the MLB later but when you have a chance to take one and possibly two good defensive linemen, its pretty unforgiveable not to.


Matt Bowen has very good reason why it extremely important to get a great backfield

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Why-drafting-defensive-backs-is-critical.html

NFL offenses: Spread the field. Look at the playbooks in Green Bay, New Orleans, New England, Chicago, etc. Offensive coordinators that want to force defenses to bring a third or even fourth corner onto the field. Empty sets, bunch looks and multiple vertical passing concepts. The NFL offenses today are becoming more and more similar to the spread looks we see at the college level. To compete, draft high in the secondary and look for mid-to-late round talent that can get on the field as a rookies.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 07:52 AM
Matt Bowen has very good reason why it extremely important to get a great backfield

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Why-drafting-defensive-backs-is-critical.html

NFL offenses: Spread the field. Look at the playbooks in Green Bay, New Orleans, New England, Chicago, etc. Offensive coordinators that want to force defenses to bring a third or even fourth corner onto the field. Empty sets, bunch looks and multiple vertical passing concepts. The NFL offenses today are becoming more and more similar to the spread looks we see at the college level. To compete, draft high in the secondary and look for mid-to-late round talent that can get on the field as a rookies.

Thats great but it doesnt change the fact that the rules have made it tougher for DBs to play defense to such an extent that success on defense has become increasingly reliant on the front 7.

That excerpt you posted isnt a justification for taking a CB at #2.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 07:54 AM
I don't know, it seems like there's pretty much a consensus that PP is the most talented player in the draft. The only thing possibly knocking him down boards is that corners don't go that high, on the flip side, I could see anyone in the Top 5 taking him because he is the talent of the draft.

Not true. There are some people who think Dareus is the best overall player. A lot actually.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 07:55 AM
Holy ****, man. I guess you're forgetting that we have more than just the number two pick in the draft. I guess you don't realize that taking Peterson doesn't mean we are "ignoring" the front seven.

I guess you're not very smart.

Speaking of which. Ive addressed this as back to front thinking numerous time. Where have you been?

HAT
04-23-2011, 08:08 AM
Not true. There are some people who think Dareus is the best overall player. A lot actually.

Bull****. Outside of Mayock, a known contrarian who had McCoy ahead of Suh last year.......Link me to even 3 big boards that have Dareus ahead of Peterson as BPA.

I've seen more that have AJ Green or Miller ahead of Dareus than ones that have Dareus over Peterson.

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:14 AM
McShay has Dareus first. I've seen Dareus, Miller and Peterson ranked in various orders on multiple sites. I've also seen Green among the top. I don't think there is a consensus #1 overall player in this draft.

SureShot
04-23-2011, 08:23 AM
You draft Peterson not only because he is a badass and the best player in the draft, you draft him because the INT for TD is the biggest game changer in football.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/multimedia/dynamic/00730/Super_Bowl_Football_730691e.jpg

http://pictures.replayphotos.com/images/NFL/md/national-football-league--nfl-x-x-04450md.jpg

This should have been a TD and had had the same psychological effect.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/223/339/t1_champ_all_display_image.jpg?1273614156

Cito Pelon
04-23-2011, 08:25 AM
Eh, Peterson is the best bet at #2. He's potentially too good to pass on, we'll just have to worry about DT later.

It sure looks to me like PP should be the guy. Once you factor in the high bust rate of top-1st round DT's, and the marginal difference btwn the top 2 DT's and 2nd-tier DT's in THIS draft, everything points toward PP as the way to go at #2.

tsiguy96
04-23-2011, 08:26 AM
McShay has Dareus first. I've seen Dareus, Miller and Peterson ranked in various orders on multiple sites. I've also seen Green among the top. I don't think there is a consensus #1 overall player in this draft.

it almost seems like there are 4-5 players who could be considered the #1 based on your need, unlike years when say bradford/suh come out and its just a matter of whos 1 and whos 2.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:31 AM
If Peterson is as good as projected then I have no problem taking him. I'd prefer a dominant safety for the Broncos but that's not a top pick. I'm leaning towards DL now because, yes together with Champ they'll be lethal but if we don't start getting pressure up front it may be for naught. That being said I do have a problem with you not answering the guys question legitimately, while trying to put a spin on taking the DB position. There are good defensive line guys who have played a number of years with comparatively little time missed.
Vince Wilfork 7 yrs
Pat Williams 14 yrs
Kevin Williams 8 yrs
Richard Seymour 10 yrs
LaRoi Glover 12 yrs
Jamal Williams 13 yrs
Shaun Rogers 10 yrs
Trevor Pryce 14 yrs
and theres more

As far as defensive awards a defensive lineman is like an offensive lineman...not given the credit for what they do and rarely in the limelight. They are the anchor of the defense and without them you have....well...the Denver Broncos. If Peterson is who they pick, I'll be fine, in fact I'll be happy. But don't misrepresent by naming the ones that suck because that's just as easy with a DB.

1. Better coverage underneath directly improves the safeties

2. Wtf are you smoking? Not answering it legitimately and putting a spin on it?

I gave positive AND negative examples.

I mentioned several names on YOUR list for christs sake. In fact, just about the ONLY ones I didn't mention on your list are 3-4 players. Btw, Richard Seymour and Pryce shouldn't fit at all.

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:32 AM
it almost seems like there are 4-5 players who could be considered the #1 based on your need, unlike years when say bradford/suh come out and its just a matter of whos 1 and whos 2.

I agree. When you look at our needs, I think the only guy you take out of the equation is Green. Any of the other 4 would be quality picks that fill a need for us. However, the depth at DT would seem to make it more likely we could get a top tier guy there in the 2nd. With Peterson and Miller, there is a pretty big drop-off after the first couple guys at DB and LB. I really think Peterson ultimately ends up at safety which is probably a bigger need for us anyway. Miller would be my choice if we stay at #2, however.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:34 AM
I agree. When you look at our needs, I think the only guy you take out of the equation is Green. Any of the other 4 would be quality picks that fill a need for us. However, the depth at DT would seem to make it more likely we could get a top tier guy there in the 2nd. With Peterson and Miller, there is a pretty big drop-off after the first couple guys at DB and LB. I really think Peterson ultimately ends up at safety which is probably a bigger need for us anyway. Miller would be my choice if we stay at #2, however.

Curious. Why?

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 08:34 AM
I agree. When you look at our needs, I think the only guy you take out of the equation is Green. Any of the other 4 would be quality picks that fill a need for us. However, the depth at DT would seem to make it more likely we could get a top tier guy there in the 2nd. With Peterson and Miller, there is a pretty big drop-off after the first couple guys at DB and LB. I really think Peterson ultimately ends up at safety which is probably a bigger need for us anyway. Miller would be my choice if we stay at #2, however.

Thats not safe to assume at all. Theyre talking about 15 DL going in the first round.

Also, if DT is really that deep, you should go after getting two of them by starting with taking one in the first.

tsiguy96
04-23-2011, 08:36 AM
Curious. Why?

based on everything youve said and ive read here, im not sure if this is true, but mayock says because of his size/speed combo but also because hes "stiff"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/mayock-patrick-peterson-could-be-an-all-pro-safety/

thats literally one of the only times ive heard that associated with peterson, but its one thought i guess

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 08:38 AM
based on everything youve said and ive read here, im not sure if this is true, but mayock says because of his size/speed combo but also because hes "stiff"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/mayock-patrick-peterson-could-be-an-all-pro-safety/

thats literally one of the only times ive heard that associated with peterson, but its one thought i guess

Mayock played DB in the NFL too.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:40 AM
based on everything youve said and ive read here, im not sure if this is true, but mayock says because of his size/speed combo but also because hes "stiff"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/mayock-patrick-peterson-could-be-an-all-pro-safety/

thats literally one of the only times ive heard that associated with peterson, but its one thought i guess

Mayock should know better being a former DB. I genuinely feel he says that to try and justify his PROJECTION on Dareus. Same **** he's been doing for years.

Then again, he also didn't know better and projected Alphonso Smith as the number one CB and one of his top 5 players, two years ago, so who the hell knows what he's "seeing"

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:41 AM
Curious. Why?

I just think his natural size is going to eventually cause him trouble with NFL receivers. He is carrying 220 now and carrying it well - and I don't see him getting smaller. How many corners do you see at that size? That's not a knock on him at all - he would make a spectacular ball-hawking center fielder. Hell, teams are in nickel so much anyway. I would love to have a safety who could match up and cover like him.

HAT
04-23-2011, 08:41 AM
it almost seems like there are 4-5 players who could be considered the #1 based on your need, unlike years when say bradford/suh come out and its just a matter of whos 1 and whos 2.

Now you're talking about mocks.....se7en made a BS claim that he can't back up Re: big boards. Peterson is absolutely the consensus BPA. Yes, there's a handfull of BB's that have Miller, Green, Dareus and even Fairley at #1 but they are few and far between.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:43 AM
I just think his natural size is going to eventually cause him trouble with NFL receivers. He is carrying 220 now and carrying it well - and I don't see him getting smaller. How many corners do you see at that size? That's not a knock on him at all - he would make a spectacular ball-hawking center fielder. Hell, teams are in nickel so much anyway. I would love to have a safety who could match up and cover like him.

His quickness and speed at THAT size is one of the things that makes him so attractive an option at CB...

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 08:45 AM
Now you're talking about mocks.....se7en made a BS claim that he can't back up Re: big boards. Peterson is absolutely the consensus BPA. Yes, there's a handfull of BB's that have Miller, Green, Dareus and even Fairley at #1 but they are few and far between.

See post 77.

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:46 AM
Thats not safe to assume at all. Theyre talking about 15 DL going in the first round.

Also, if DT is really that deep, you should go after getting two of them by starting with taking one in the first.

Given our multiple needs, I don't think you can discount the importance of filling as many of those need as possible. If you have one or two DT's who are head and shoulders above the rest, then I agree with you. I don't think that is the case in this draft - there is not a huge drop-off among the DT's.

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:49 AM
His quickness and speed at THAT size is one of the things that makes him so attractive an option at CB...

Well, he would be unique for sure. I do wonder if he loses some flexibility and quickness at that size - particularly as he matures physically (he is still a young guy). Hey, it worked for Ronnie Lott. I could see a similar transition for Peterson. Do you not see him as a fit at safety, or just see him as that much better at corner?

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 08:50 AM
Given our multiple needs, I don't think you can discount the importance of filling as many of those need as possible. If you have one or two DT's who are head and shoulders above the rest, then I agree with you. I don't think that is the case in this draft - there is not a huge drop-off among the DT's.

Not all needs are equal. People keep talking down on building back to front for a reason.

meangene
04-23-2011, 08:53 AM
Not all needs are equal. People keep talking down on building back to front for a reason.

And not all positions in a particular have equal depth - it has to factor in to the decision-making.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:53 AM
Well, he would be unique for sure. I do wonder if he loses some flexibility and quickness at that size - particularly as he matures physically (he is still a young guy). Hey, it worked for Ronnie Lott. I could see a similar transition for Peterson. Do you not see him as a fit at safety, or just see him as that much better at corner?

Oh no no no. He definitely can play safety at a really high level.

I just think he's a lot more valuable to a defense playing corner... especially potentially here with Champ on the other side. Our base defense could now have 8 in the box, more exotic blitz packages and some pretty sweet zones in the middle of the field.

HAT
04-23-2011, 08:54 AM
That thinking is what has been part of the problem: "We can take care of DT later".

Just curious se7en.....

If QB was seen to be Denver's "biggest need" this year and Denver had the exact same first 3 draft picks.......

Would you be advocating taking Gabbert or Newton at #2 instead of BPA?
Or would you think it more prudent to select the overall BPA (who also happens to fill a secondary need) and then grab one of the so called tier 2 QB's at #36?

It's basically the same situation. Gabbert & Newton are the top 2 QB's by default....They really haven't separated themselves from the Lockers, Ponders and Daltons of this draft. And neither have Dareus & Fairley from Liuget, Austin, Wilk, Paea, etc.

That's not the case with Peterson & Miller. Some would argue that maybe Prince isn't all that far behind Peterson but he's also a top 15'er so that doesn't really matter. There's not going to be anywhere near that kind of talent at CB or pass rushing SAM at #36.

Spider
04-23-2011, 08:55 AM
you can have entire secondary full of superstars , but if you dont have it up front , it wont help ......

HAT
04-23-2011, 08:57 AM
See post 77.

See post #76. Specifically the bolded portion of your quote where you claimed "A lot" of people have Dareus ahead of Peterson as BPA. It's simply not true.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 08:58 AM
you can have entire secondary full of superstars , but if you dont have it up front , it wont help ......

So true. Our defense was awful with Pope and Fatafehi and Pryce out for the year with a back injury.

Oh wait....

HAT
04-23-2011, 08:59 AM
you can have entire secondary full of superstars , but if you dont have it up front , it wont help ......

Which is why nobody is arguing the fact that DT doesn't need to be addressed. ???

And you're high if you don't think a secondary consisting of Revis, Champ, Reed & Polamalu in their primes wouldn't be a force with even the worst front 7 in the league.

meangene
04-23-2011, 09:01 AM
Oh no no no. He definitely can play safety at a really high level.

I just think he's a lot more valuable to a defense playing corner... especially potentially here with Champ on the other side. Our base defense could now have 8 in the box, more exotic blitz packages and some pretty sweet zones in the middle of the field.

I guess I'm thinking we have a much bigger need at safety. And, if we go DB with our 1st, I can't see coming back with another DB in the first three rounds given our needs at DL, LB, TE and OT. To me, I'm much more sold on Peterson at #2 overall for us if we just plug him and and play him at S from day one. Particularly since that is where I think he will end up in a few years. I think we can get by with Goodman, Vaughan, Thompson, and, maybe Cox. We've really got nothing at safety. I am buying into Peterson or Miller at #2. The advantage Peterson has is we may still be able to get him if we trade back some where I think Miller is going to Buffalo.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 09:07 AM
I guess I'm thinking we have a much bigger need at safety. And, if we go DB with our 1st, I can't see coming back with another DB in the first three rounds given our needs at DL, LB, TE and OT. To me, I'm much more sold on Peterson at #2 overall for us if we just plug him and and play him at S from day one. Particularly since that is where I think he will end up in a few years. I think we can get by with Goodman, Vaughan, Thompson, and, maybe Cox. We've really got nothing at safety. I am buying into Peterson or Miller at #2. The advantage Peterson has is we may still be able to get him if we trade back some where I think Miller is going to Buffalo.

Atm, sorta.

I completely disagree for two reasons:

1. Solid underneath coverage greatly improves the over the top play. Look at Hill for example. He's an average to above average safety with some decent range and ability. When he has to play center or even on a hash, with Cox or Goodman underneath he has to be ready to make the safe play. When you have more guys that really just take away the option, he's free to spend more time reading the QBs eyes and shoulders and playing the ball.

2. There are a LOT of reallllllllllly good S options in FA.

(Distant and unreliable #3. I have hopes McBath will be injury free this season.)

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 09:12 AM
See post #76. Specifically the bolded portion of your quote where you claimed "A lot" of people have Dareus ahead of Peterson as BPA. It's simply not true.

Again, 77 addressed that. But if you really want to pin it down in greater detail, maybe you should use google and research it yourself.

NFLBRONCO
04-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Which is why nobody is arguing the fact that DT doesn't need to be addressed. ???

And you're high if you don't think a secondary consisting of Revis, Champ, Reed & Polamalu in their primes wouldn't be a force with even the worst front 7 in the league.

Sign me up for this anytime. I think alot of fans only focus on the obvious we need front 7 help (Which we do) but, honestly we need ALL LEVELS of our D upgraded and it will take a few seasons to fix.

HAT
04-23-2011, 09:24 AM
Again, 77 addressed that. But if you really want to pin it down in greater detail, maybe you should use google and research it yourself.

It addressed nothing. Your claim was "A lot"....Which is untrue. You can't even post 3-5 links outside of Mayock.

HAT
04-23-2011, 09:27 AM
I guess I'm thinking we have a much bigger need at safety. And, if we go DB with our 1st, I can't see coming back with another DB in the first three rounds given our needs at DL, LB, TE and OT. To me, I'm much more sold on Peterson at #2 overall for us if we just plug him and and play him at S from day one. Particularly since that is where I think he will end up in a few years. I think we can get by with Goodman, Vaughan, Thompson, and, maybe Cox. We've really got nothing at safety. I am buying into Peterson or Miller at #2. The advantage Peterson has is we may still be able to get him if we trade back some where I think Miller is going to Buffalo.

Drafting Peterson helps the safety position if he never plays a down there. Just patch work the S's this year and move Champ to FS the next.

meangene
04-23-2011, 09:34 AM
Atm, sorta.

I completely disagree for two reasons:

1. Solid underneath coverage greatly improves the over the top play. Look at Hill for example. He's an average to above average safety with some decent range and ability. When he has to play center or even on a hash, with Cox or Goodman underneath he has to be ready to make the safe play. When you have more guys that really just take away the option, he's free to spend more time reading the QBs eyes and shoulders and playing the ball.

2. There are a LOT of reallllllllllly good S options in FA.

(Distant and unreliable #3. I have hopes McBath will be injury free this season.)

And, having a guy like Peterson on the back end can make up for a ton of mistakes up front. How many big plays did we give up last year that just killed us? And, I think it frees him up even more to make plays on the ball. He could have Ed Reed impact back there. I would rather make a team beat us with a lot of short underneath stuff.

I really think Hill's play is falling off. I was hopeful McBath could really step up last year but he didn't. Gotta wonder if he's just too frail to play safety. FA is such a crap-shoot this year, I don't think you can depend on anything there. I really like some of the TE's in FA too but wouldn't count on being able to land any of them. This year's draft has to be treated differently because of the FA situation. You really can't count on filling needs that way.

Hey, at least I've come around to Peterson in the first.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 09:35 AM
It addressed nothing. Your claim was "A lot"....Which is untrue. You can't even post 3-5 links outside of Mayock.

You do realize that "a lot" is subjective and if Im the one saying it, it's in accordance with what I consider to be "a lot" right? Like I said, Ive seen Dareus mentioned as the best overall a lot.

Deal with it.

And Im telling you right now, you need to do your own research. When Im reading draft stuff, Im not documenting it in case some clown decides to challenge me on some issue he has over something as semantic as "a lot". I dont document all the draft things I read, nor do I memorize them. But that doesnt mean the culmination of what I read doesnt give me an impression that a lot of people have said something that you disagree with.

Play2win
04-23-2011, 09:48 AM
I bet peterson get burnt a lot, especially first year or two in the league.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 09:49 AM
And, having a guy like Peterson on the back end can make up for a ton of mistakes up front. How many big plays did we give up last year that just killed us? And, I think it frees him up even more to make plays on the ball. He could have Ed Reed impact back there. I would rather make a team beat us with a lot of short underneath stuff.

I really think Hill's play is falling off. I was hopeful McBath could really step up last year but he didn't. Gotta wonder if he's just too frail to play safety. FA is such a crap-shoot this year, I don't think you can depend on anything there. I really like some of the TE's in FA too but wouldn't count on being able to land any of them. This year's draft has to be treated differently because of the FA situation. You really can't count on filling needs that way.

Hey, at least I've come around to Peterson in the first.

I refuse to compare players to HoF locks, but I do agree. He's just a LOT more valuable at CB for the entire unit, imo.

As for FA... we're GOING to get a FA period eventually, and we'll have those FA's in BEFORE the draft picks when you consider FA contracts are easier to negotiate. Then again... if we get slotted rookie deals, it may be a lot easier to come to terms and take away a lot of the OPTION to hold out.

HAT
04-23-2011, 10:11 AM
You do realize that "a lot" is subjective and if Im the one saying it, it's in accordance with what I consider to be "a lot" right? Like I said, Ive seen Dareus mentioned as the best overall a lot.

Deal with it.

And Im telling you right now, you need to do your own research. When Im reading draft stuff, Im not documenting it in case some clown decides to challenge me on some issue he has over something as semantic as "a lot". I dont document all the draft things I read, nor do I memorize them. But that doesnt mean the culmination of what I read doesnt give me an impression that a lot of people have said something that you disagree with.

So, no links then?

You gonna take a crack at #97 or just ignore that one too?

meangene
04-23-2011, 10:12 AM
I refuse to compare players to HoF locks, but I do agree. He's just a LOT more valuable at CB for the entire unit, imo.

As for FA... we're GOING to get a FA period eventually, and we'll have those FA's in BEFORE the draft picks when you consider FA contracts are easier to negotiate. Then again... if we get slotted rookie deals, it may be a lot easier to come to terms and take away a lot of the OPTION to hold out.

The problem with FA after the draft is you just don't know who you may, or may not, be able to sign. So, IMO, you can't really count on signing any of them. I do think slotted rookie deals will be part of the new CBA. All indications are that was an issue the two sides were able to agree on.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 10:17 AM
The problem with FA after the draft is you just don't know who you may, or may not, be able to sign. So, IMO, you can't really count on signing any of them. I do think slotted rookie deals will be part of the new CBA. All indications are that was an issue the two sides were able to agree on.

...another benefit of drafting such a versatile athlete.

orange crusher
04-23-2011, 10:20 AM
Re-read. In the first part of the quote he says "I'll be honest with you, I had Rod Woodson, Gil Byrd, I've had some pretty good guys. I've never seen anything like (Peterson).

That is absolutely a comparison. He mentions Peterson's height being the same as Rod's in the 2nd part of the quote.

I re-read it and suggest you do the same. You left out the last part in your quote. "I'll be honest with you, I had Rod Woodson, Gil Byrd, I've had some pretty good guys. I've never seen anything like (Peterson), that size, that speed." IMO, he's only saying that he hasn't seen that combination of size/speed. Nowhere does he compare him to Woodson as far as playing ability.

Jetmeck
04-23-2011, 10:21 AM
I know because after our #2 pick we'd be all finished drafting right?

My God, there is so much damn DT depth to be had and we have 2 2nd round picks to use on just that...I sure would hate to take the best defensive player in the entire draft, and some other DTs that have very little drop off if any from the 1st round guys. That sure would be a fail on us!

I honestly think this makes the most since and think this is EXACTLY what we'll see this coming weekend.

Go Broncos !

Cito Pelon
04-23-2011, 10:30 AM
Atm, sorta.

I completely disagree for two reasons:

1. Solid underneath coverage greatly improves the over the top play. Look at Hill for example. He's an average to above average safety with some decent range and ability. When he has to play center or even on a hash, with Cox or Goodman underneath he has to be ready to make the safe play. When you have more guys that really just take away the option, he's free to spend more time reading the QBs eyes and shoulders and playing the ball.

2. There are a LOT of reallllllllllly good S options in FA.

(Distant and unreliable #3. I have hopes McBath will be injury free this season.)

McBath is a cross your fingers kind of guy along with Jason Hunter, Vickerson, Mario Haggan, Joe Mays, Woodyard, Bruton, Squid, Cox, Larsen, maybe even Ayers.

IF those guys can step up the Peterson pick at #2 and "2nd-tier" DT in round 2 looks much better. We picked up a fullback from STL, so Larsen can go to depth at MLB along with Mays, and both of them add to ST's.

Squid, I think that guy has great potential, he's absolutely a keeper at nickle/returner/backup CB. McBath still has potential at FS if he can stop trying to tackle with his forearm to the helmet. Bruton has potential at SS.

Like Fox said, the cupboard isn't bare. They can take a chance on PP rather than DT at #2 and still have hopes for improvement as a defense.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 10:31 AM
I re-read it and suggest you do the same. You left out the last part in your quote. "I'll be honest with you, I had Rod Woodson, Gil Byrd, I've had some pretty good guys. I've never seen anything like (Peterson), that size, that speed." IMO, he's only saying that he hasn't seen that combination of size/speed. Nowhere does he compare him to Woodson as far as playing ability.

To clarify for general knowledge: Woodson was the same speed at 205 lbs.

One thing to note: Fox was a former DB coach, so reading into the statement isn't far fetched.

http://draftdish.com/2011/04/03/john-fox-infatuated-with-peterson/

For what it's worth considering the source:

"Word out of Denver, from very close sources to the new coaching staff, suggest Broncos Head Coach John Fox and VP of Player Personnel John Elway have Louisiana State DB Patrick Peterson at the very top of their draft board. The source used the words “infatuated” and “licking his chops” when describing what Fox, a former defensive backs coach, plans to do with Peterson."

Requiem
04-23-2011, 10:47 AM
Fox and Allen are both DB guys. Peterson seems like the most logical choice for them, given their past.

Cito Pelon
04-23-2011, 11:00 AM
And, having a guy like Peterson on the back end can make up for a ton of mistakes up front. How many big plays did we give up last year that just killed us? And, I think it frees him up even more to make plays on the ball. He could have Ed Reed impact back there. I would rather make a team beat us with a lot of short underneath stuff.

I really think Hill's play is falling off. I was hopeful McBath could really step up last year but he didn't. Gotta wonder if he's just too frail to play safety. FA is such a crap-shoot this year, I don't think you can depend on anything there. I really like some of the TE's in FA too but wouldn't count on being able to land any of them. This year's draft has to be treated differently because of the FA situation. You really can't count on filling needs that way.

Hey, at least I've come around to Peterson in the first.

I don't think McBath is too frail, maybe just some bad luck. His injuries have been to his forearm, IIRC. Two times he broke his forearm.

Spider
04-23-2011, 11:01 AM
Which is why nobody is arguing the fact that DT doesn't need to be addressed. ???

And you're high if you don't think a secondary consisting of Revis, Champ, Reed & Polamalu in their primes wouldn't be a force with even the worst front 7 in the league.

and you are ****ing stoned of you think I give a rats ass what you think

Spider
04-23-2011, 11:04 AM
Which is why nobody is arguing the fact that DT doesn't need to be addressed. ???

And you're high if you don't think a secondary consisting of Revis, Champ, Reed & Polamalu in their primes wouldn't be a force with even the worst front 7 in the league.

LOL no one can cover WR for more then 4 seconds , I mean no one , not even Champ or Prime time , hell the great louis write couldnt either , someone somewhere will get open ....... 3 rd and short , the money down ........LOL that secondary is a joke in short yardage and goal line

mhgaffney
04-23-2011, 11:11 AM
You can take Peterson if you use both 2nd round picks to shore up the DL.

gunns
04-23-2011, 11:26 AM
1. Better coverage underneath directly improves the safeties

2. Wtf are you smoking? Not answering it legitimately and putting a spin on it?

I gave positive AND negative examples.

I mentioned several names on YOUR list for christs sake. In fact, just about the ONLY ones I didn't mention on your list are 3-4 players. Btw, Richard Seymour and Pryce shouldn't fit at all.

1. So that's why Polamalu and Ed Reed are so good! Yep Pitt and Balt have dynamite Corners.

2. You gave one positive example. So 3-4 DT's are the only good ones? You mentioned 1 on my list. Why shouldn't Pryce and Seymour be mentioned? They were both DT's. Seymour was a 6 time pro bowler and a 4 time all pro. Pryce has had a long career contributing, 4 time pro bowler and 1 time all pro. As I said at the end of my post you can find as many bad DB's as DT's. I wasn't giving an example of why to take a DT, I was showing that your post was attempting to show why to take a DB by mentioning the ones that collapsed. And Stroud wasn't one of them.

meangene
04-23-2011, 11:33 AM
I don't think McBath is too frail, maybe just some bad luck. His injuries have been to his forearm, IIRC. Two times he broke his forearm.

I give him one more year to stay healthy and step up. When I watch him play, though, he looks smaller than his listed size to me. I was high on him going into last year so we'll see what happens. Either way, we need another safety in this draft.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 11:37 AM
So, no links then?

You gonna take a crack at #97 or just ignore that one too?

You can google, right?

BTW, I just skimmed 97. I saw you mentioning QBs and thats all I needed to see to not read the rest.

bronco0608
04-23-2011, 11:39 AM
To clarify for general knowledge: Woodson was the same speed at 205 lbs.

One thing to note: Fox was a former DB coach, so reading into the statement isn't far fetched.

http://draftdish.com/2011/04/03/john-fox-infatuated-with-peterson/

For what it's worth considering the source:

"Word out of Denver, from very close sources to the new coaching staff, suggest Broncos Head Coach John Fox and VP of Player Personnel John Elway have Louisiana State DB Patrick Peterson at the very top of their draft board. The source used the words “infatuated” and “licking his chops” when describing what Fox, a former defensive backs coach, plans to do with Peterson."

Quoting Draftdish.com now? Hilarious!

What happened, littlelarrysdraftbungalow.com quit posting "news?"

I know what I would do if I was source. **** Adam Schefter, **** Mortensen, I'm going straight to draftdish.com with Richard Alan Phillips and let him know all the juicy details. Get it, dish, fox licking his chops, juicy details?

bronco0608
04-23-2011, 11:48 AM
But seriously, do you guys really believe that Fox would come out and mention his hard on for Peterson for no apparent reason? This is not his first rodeo.

Denver has no intention of taking Peterson at 2. Drop back and trade for him, sure. But at 2 no way.

All Fox is doing is making teams that want Peterson badly consider trading with us to take him.

Cito Pelon
04-23-2011, 11:49 AM
I give him one more year to stay healthy and step up. When I watch him play, though, he looks smaller than his listed size to me. I was high on him going into last year so we'll see what happens. Either way, we need another safety in this draft.

Man, I don't know. There's so many needs. TE you mentioned before, LB. McBath does look a little skinny, small boned for a safety, same as Champ is too small boned for safety. We don't have too many stout guys in the secondary like Dawkins and he's about done, so yeah SS is up there for needs.

If there was an FA maybe we could get a stopgap guy, friggin Shanny snagged Otugwe.

meangene
04-23-2011, 12:20 PM
Man, I don't know. There's so many needs. TE you mentioned before, LB. McBath does look a little skinny, small boned for a safety, same as Champ is too small boned for safety. We don't have too many stout guys in the secondary like Dawkins and he's about done, so yeah SS is up there for needs.

If there was an FA maybe we could get a stopgap guy, friggin Shanny snagged Otugwe.

Yeah, we didn't really even kick the tires on Otugwe. I think we brought in a few safeties for meetings - Moore, Searcy, and Jarrett come to mind. Moore could be there for one of our seconds, Searcy and Jarrett could go in the third... Searcy definitely qualifies as stout.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 01:22 PM
1. So that's why Polamalu and Ed Reed are so good! Yep Pitt and Balt have dynamite Corners.

I'm not sure if you're kidding or serious. I said it improves the safety play, not defines it.

But to use your example... Ed Reeds best season, 2004-his DPOY year, had Chris McAlister (All Pro level that year) and Gary Baxter (played so well that season Cleveland gave him $30 million). The coverage allowed him to freelance more.

As for the Steelers. I'm not sure where people get this idea that Taylor and McFadden are scrubs... I was begging for Denver to sign McFadden over Goodman two off-seasons ago. That being said, LeBeau plays Polamalu very creatively all over the field, reminiscent of how JJ used to use Dawkins.

2. You gave one positive example. So 3-4 DT's are the only good ones? You mentioned 1 on my list. Why shouldn't Pryce and Seymour be mentioned? They were both DT's. Seymour was a 6 time pro bowler and a 4 time all pro. Pryce has had a long career contributing, 4 time pro bowler and 1 time all pro. As I said at the end of my post you can find as many bad DB's as DT's. I wasn't giving an example of why to take a DT, I was showing that your post was attempting to show why to take a DB by mentioning the ones that collapsed. And Stroud wasn't one of them.

Seymour played 3-4 DE and would usually line up as a LDE when they'd shift into 4-3 looks, though he did see a handful of snaps at DT with Bruschi or Vrabel off the edge. I would hardly refer to him as an NFL DT.

Trevor spent, what? 3 years as a defensive tackle before shifting to end in a 4-3? And has since played 3-4 end and has now been let go by 2 different teams and is a rotational player?

If I wanted to be negative on the DT position, I would've called a spade a ****ing spade and not been given guys like Warren the benefit of the doubt for having an extended career.

I'd post this - First round DTs over the past decade (exclude past 3 years to give "can't miss" guys like Dorsey and McCoy time to develop and become proven):

Okoye - Huge disappointment
Harrell - Flat out bust
Ngata - Winner
Bunkley - Failure
McCargo - 1 start in 5 years lol
Travis Johnson - Bust
Patterson - Mediocre
Harris - Hit: Well above average, two big impact seasons
Wilfork - Great hit
Tubbs - Bust
Robertson - Bust
Sullivan - Bust
Kennedy - Major bust
Joseph - Bust
Sims - Bust. One of my favorite KC draft picks Ha!
Henderson - Hit, solid player for a LONG time
Bryant - Mega bust
Haynesworth - Hit... sometimes extremely dominant.
Warren - Bust. VERY disappointing
Lewis - Miss, disappointing
Stroud - Hit. Used to be dominant
Hampton - Hit.
Pickett - Hit. Above average but not great.


I think I was being generous with the "hits". Even then 8/23 First round picks even remotely lived up to expectations.

The funny thing? Almost all were towards the end of the round. The top 10 selections have had an ASTOUNDING whiff rate.

TheReverend
04-23-2011, 01:23 PM
Quoting Draftdish.com now? Hilarious!

What happened, littlelarrysdraftbungalow.com quit posting "news?"

I know what I would do if I was source. **** Adam Schefter, **** Mortensen, I'm going straight to draftdish.com with Richard Alan Phillips and let him know all the juicy details. Get it, dish, fox licking his chops, juicy details?

Really shouldn't be surprised knowing your illiteracy knows no bounds:

To clarify for general knowledge: Woodson was the same speed at 205 lbs.

One thing to note: Fox was a former DB coach, so reading into the statement isn't far fetched.

http://draftdish.com/2011/04/03/john-fox-infatuated-with-peterson/

For what it's worth considering the source:

"Word out of Denver, from very close sources to the new coaching staff, suggest Broncos Head Coach John Fox and VP of Player Personnel John Elway have Louisiana State DB Patrick Peterson at the very top of their draft board. The source used the words “infatuated” and “licking his chops” when describing what Fox, a former defensive backs coach, plans to do with Peterson."

ICON
04-23-2011, 02:38 PM
But seriously, do you guys really believe that Fox would come out and mention his hard on for Peterson for no apparent reason? This is not his first rodeo.

Denver has no intention of taking Peterson at 2. Drop back and trade for him, sure. But at 2 no way.

All Fox is doing is making teams that want Peterson badly consider trading with us to take him.

Do you feel a GM on another team can be persuaded by what Fox says really ? Then they should not have an NFL job.If you watch tape on PP it should and will blow you away with his natural ability and attitude.

Peterson is a freakishly talented football player and might very well be the first corner back in the draft's history to be taken No. 1 overall.

ICON
04-23-2011, 02:42 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p2IZ9sN56RY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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


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

NFLBRONCO
04-23-2011, 03:46 PM
So it will end up being Fairley

oubronco
04-23-2011, 03:52 PM
How can they go wrong choosing from Dareus, Peterson, or Miller

HAT
04-23-2011, 04:56 PM
You can google, right?



Sure can.

2011 NFL Draft Consensus Big Board

I thought it would be interesting to combine some of the prominent 2011 NFL Draft Big Boards to form one consensus big board.

Below are the average big board position of the top prospects in the 2011 NFL Draft. I looked at seven different big boards: Mel Kiper (ESPN), Todd McShay (ESPN), Rob Rang (CBS), Scott Wright (DraftCountdown.com), Tony Pauline (Sports Illustrated), Wes Bunting's (NFP) and Mike Mayock (NFL Network; just added).

Updated April 10

1 Patrick Peterson, CB, LSU: 2.0 (Last Week: 1)


2 Von Miller, OLB, Texas A&M: 3.1 (Last Week: 3)


3 A.J. Green, WR, Georgia: 3.3 (Last Week: 2)


4 Marcell Dareus, DT, Alabama: 3.9 (Last Week: 4)


5 Robert Quinn, DE, North Carolina: 6.3 (Last Week: 6)



So, to summarize:

I don't know, it seems like there's pretty much a consensus that PP is the most talented player in the draft. The only thing possibly knocking him down boards is that corners don't go that high, on the flip side, I could see anyone in the Top 5 taking him because he is the talent of the draft.

Not true. There are some people who think Dareus is the best overall player. A lot actually.

Bull****. Outside of Mayock, a known contrarian who had McCoy ahead of Suh last year.......Link me to even 3 big boards that have Dareus ahead of Peterson as BPA.

I've seen more that have AJ Green or Miller ahead of Dareus than ones that have Dareus over Peterson.

Now go make me a sammich.

DarkHorse
04-23-2011, 05:07 PM
How can they go wrong choosing from Dareus, Peterson, or Miller

I'd count any of those 3 a win - will be a great day Thursday when one of these guys are wearing a Broncos hat on stage!

Hercules Rockefeller
04-23-2011, 05:12 PM
But seriously, do you guys really believe that Fox would come out and mention his hard on for Peterson for no apparent reason? This is not his first rodeo.

Denver has no intention of taking Peterson at 2. Drop back and trade for him, sure. But at 2 no way.

All Fox is doing is making teams that want Peterson badly consider trading with us to take him.

Suh? You've had 48 hours to figure out your answer.

Of just be a bitch and continue to dodge.

OrangeSe7en
04-23-2011, 05:14 PM
Sure can.

2011 NFL Draft Consensus Big Board

I thought it would be interesting to combine some of the prominent 2011 NFL Draft Big Boards to form one consensus big board.

Below are the average big board position of the top prospects in the 2011 NFL Draft. I looked at seven different big boards: Mel Kiper (ESPN), Todd McShay (ESPN), Rob Rang (CBS), Scott Wright (DraftCountdown.com), Tony Pauline (Sports Illustrated), Wes Bunting's (NFP) and Mike Mayock (NFL Network; just added).

Updated April 10

1 Patrick Peterson, CB, LSU: 2.0 (Last Week: 1)


2 Von Miller, OLB, Texas A&M: 3.1 (Last Week: 3)


3 A.J. Green, WR, Georgia: 3.3 (Last Week: 2)


4 Marcell Dareus, DT, Alabama: 3.9 (Last Week: 4)


5 Robert Quinn, DE, North Carolina: 6.3 (Last Week: 6)



So, to summarize:







Now go make me a sammich.

What does this mean (other than that you need ritalin)?

Dedhed
04-23-2011, 06:19 PM
1. So that's why Polamalu and Ed Reed are so good! Yep Pitt and Balt have dynamite Corners.It's two way street. If the safeties are HOFers, it takes pressure off the CBs. If the CBs are HOFers, it takes pressure off the safeties. It's the same for front 7 vs the back end. There's no static formula, which is why you become more successful going with BPA.

bronco0608
04-23-2011, 06:21 PM
It's two way street. If the safeties are HOFers, it takes pressure off the CBs. If the CBs are HOFers, it takes pressure off the safeties. It's the same for front 7 vs the back end. There's no static formula, which is why you become more successful going with BPA.

No ****, huh? Hey, tell us how you are able to recognize man to man defense vs zone defenses.:spit:

Dedhed
04-23-2011, 06:51 PM
How can they go wrong choosing from Dareus, Peterson, or Miller

I'll be varying degrees of smitten with any of them.

Peterson
Miller
Dareus

That's my personal order, but I get that it's a matter of taste.

Dedhed
04-23-2011, 06:51 PM
No ****, huh? Hey, tell us how you are able to recognize man to man defense vs zone defenses.:spit:

Thanks OP.

HAT
04-23-2011, 11:13 PM
What does this mean (other than that you need ritalin)?

That you suck at posting on the 'Mane.

KipCorrington25
04-23-2011, 11:48 PM
I don't even care anymore I just can't wait until the selection is made, a bunch of drama queens come on here and proclaim to not be Denver fans anymore, and then it's over. May 1st can't come soon enough.

Cleo McDowell
04-24-2011, 12:00 AM
Just curious se7en.....

If QB was seen to be Denver's "biggest need" this year and Denver had the exact same first 3 draft picks.......

Would you be advocating taking Gabbert or Newton at #2 instead of BPA?
Or would you think it more prudent to select the overall BPA (who also happens to fill a secondary need) and then grab one of the so called tier 2 QB's at #36?

It's basically the same situation. Gabbert & Newton are the top 2 QB's by default....They really haven't separated themselves from the Lockers, Ponders and Daltons of this draft. And neither have Dareus & Fairley from Liuget, Austin, Wilk, Paea, etc.

That's not the case with Peterson & Miller. Some would argue that maybe Prince isn't all that far behind Peterson but he's also a top 15'er so that doesn't really matter. There's not going to be anywhere near that kind of talent at CB or pass rushing SAM at #36.

This is a great point that I would love to see someone address.