PDA

View Full Version : LaCanfora/Henderson: Rumors heavy that Shanny will move up to #2 for Gabbert


montrose
04-26-2011, 06:00 PM
JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Spoke Monday about the Redskins interest in trading up to No 2 to land a QB. @KaraHenderson, reporting from Denver today, echoed that and...

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Others reporting similar versions as well. I'm not convinced the Skins can't land Gabbert at 10 but several GMs believe they will move to 2

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Several GMs I've talked to believe Skins will move to 2 to make sure they get Gabbert. I think he'd likely be there at 10

http://twitter.com/#!/JasonLaCanfora

extralife
04-26-2011, 06:02 PM
I imagine they'd have to get an intermediary pick somewhere between 2 and 10 for us to be interested. I doubt we want to fall that far.

Chris
04-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Gah moving back to 10 throws a lot out of whack. We looking at Cameron Jordan then?

SureShot
04-26-2011, 06:03 PM
Get us the third pick Shanny and its a deal.

Rabb
04-26-2011, 06:03 PM
I don't know how they would get the ammo, but I am not crazy about dropping to #10 especially since it will likely involve future picks that are uncertain at this point

I am pretty stupid with this stuff, can a 3rd team get involved like in the NBA for trade ammo?

elsid13
04-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Draft rumor BS

bpc
04-26-2011, 06:08 PM
I think this is a legit rumor... only what could they give up? Their first and Donovan McNabb?

oubronco
04-26-2011, 06:09 PM
Come on AZ make us an offer we can't refuse

LongDongJohnson
04-26-2011, 06:10 PM
shanarat is at it again. Elway wont fall for his tricks.

mkporter
04-26-2011, 06:11 PM
Smokescreen. Shanny wants Locker, IMO. Remember Shanahan's drafts here? He wouldn't even have guys visit that he was interested in. There's no way NFL beat writers are getting this info unless Shanahan or some other team wants them to have it.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 06:12 PM
I think this is a legit rumor... only what could they give up? Their first and Donovan McNabb?

No ****ing way

No team is going to trade players right now

That's terrible even if they could

HAT
04-26-2011, 06:12 PM
I'm probably in the minority in not minding dropping to #10 one iota....Provided Denver gets full value and then some. Washington just doesn't have the ammo. #41 is all they could offer this year. Not sure if #41 plus a 2012 first is worth it. (Even though it's likely to be a top 10 pick again in 2012)

DarkHorse
04-26-2011, 06:13 PM
No thanks.


As a fan I don't expect to have the opportunity to draft an elite player again in my lifetime. Don't trade out unless it's still in the top 5 please.

oubronco
04-26-2011, 06:15 PM
I'm probably in the minority in not minding dropping to #10 one iota....Provided Denver gets full value and then some. Washington just doesn't have the ammo. #41 is all they could offer this year. Not sure if #41 plus a 2012 first is worth it. (Even though it's likely to be a top 10 pick again in 2012)

Damn just think 2 top ten picks next year that would be awesome

HAT
04-26-2011, 06:21 PM
Damn just think 2 top ten picks next year that would be awesome

Dream on....Denver is playoff bound in 2011. :thumbs:

TheReverend
04-26-2011, 06:23 PM
I think this is a legit rumor... only what could they give up? Their first and Donovan McNabb?

Their first and next years first and maybe a #2. Snyder could be pushing this hard on how Shanny feels about Gabbert and TECHNICALLY Allen is the GM anyway.

bpc
04-26-2011, 06:25 PM
I like trade talk.

Not a fan of McNabb but I have no doubt he's a chip that Shanny will try to lay on the table.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 06:27 PM
I like trade talk.

Not a fan of McNabb but I have no doubt he's a chip that Shanny will try to lay on the table.

He'll turn 35 in November, was benched the last 3 games, has falling production, and a large contract.

He's worthless in a trade.

DarkHorse
04-26-2011, 06:31 PM
Say what you will but i'll take Orton over McNabb these days.


Just say no to this trade please.

Natedog24
04-26-2011, 06:34 PM
I won't believe any rumor regarding a Shanny coached team in the days leading up to the draft. Been down that road before...

lostknight
04-26-2011, 06:35 PM
I wonder if the story is slightly wrong - I wonder if they are talking a Orton trade. Shanny needs a QB bad. We need someone to backup Tebow. Orton isn't willing.

Missouribronc
04-26-2011, 06:36 PM
Teams cannot trade players.

Say it with me:

Teams cannot trade players.

DarkHorse
04-26-2011, 06:37 PM
Teams cannot trade players.

Say it with me:

Teams cannot trade players.

I thought they could but simply won't right now?


Could have sworn that's exactly what was reported on Total Access last night.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 06:38 PM
Teams cannot trade players.

Say it with me:

Teams cannot trade players.

The lockout has been enjoined, technically they can, but no one will until there's a ruling on the stay for the appeal.

lostknight
04-26-2011, 06:40 PM
Teams cannot trade players.

Say it with me:

Teams cannot trade players.

Incorrect as of last night theoretically. The league leaves itself open to anti-trust violations, but at this point, the league doesn't really have any options.

Requiem
04-26-2011, 06:48 PM
Washington doesn't have near enough ammunition this year.

I'd take #41 off their hands with #10, as well as future considerations. They also have two fives, a six and two sevens that could be tossed in as well. Nothing major, but at least some value for this year. I really don't see how they do it, unless the Broncos feel that moving down to ten and acquiring some of those picks and future ones are worth the drop down, especially with $ considerations.

lostknight
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
I don't think it's a mistake that the trade rumors are coming from teams with former Denver coaches - Houston and Washington. My guess is that Elway gave them a call to stir the pot and see if they can get the cardinals to bite.

tsiguy96
04-26-2011, 07:01 PM
i would love to take this trade, this and next years #1 as well as this years #2 of theirs, for our #2. then trade the #10 and a 3rd round pick to titans for #8 and take fairley.

Requiem
04-26-2011, 07:04 PM
^ You don't trade down to trade back up, Jesus Christ.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 07:05 PM
With no 4th or 5th, I'd hate to see them trade away their 3rd. Too big of a gap from 2B and 6A.

tsiguy96
04-26-2011, 07:06 PM
^ You don't trade down to trade back up, Jesus Christ.

you do if it gets you an additional 1 next year and allows you to get a top prospect this year. you dont give up the opportunity to grab a guy like fairley just because you wont move up 2 spots to get him. also allows TEN to get their QB.

rugbythug
04-26-2011, 07:07 PM
^ You don't trade down to trade back up, Jesus Christ.

No it was Tim Tebow. Back from 12 then back up to 25. With 23 as a mixer.

uplink
04-26-2011, 07:08 PM
Hope the broncos trade down, the #2 is TOO EXPENSIVE and will hurt the broncos more than it will help. You'd have to get the absolute best projected performance out of Dareus, Miller, or Peterson to make it worth while. They should trade down even if they don't get full value.

Requiem
04-26-2011, 07:08 PM
TSI, I don't want Fairley.

And LOL @ rugby.

Chris
04-26-2011, 07:10 PM
Hope the broncos trade down, the #2 is TOO EXPENSIVE and will hurt the broncos more than it will help. You'd have to get the absolute best projected performance out of Dareus, Miller, or Peterson to make it worth while. They should trade down even if they don't get full value.

About the only thing both sides agree on is the need for a rookie cap.

baja
04-26-2011, 07:13 PM
Shanny will trade first with AZ than trade that pick to us for a future #1 draft choice

WolfpackGuy
04-26-2011, 07:16 PM
For Gabbert?

Our party's host is a Skins fan, so Thursday night will be off to a roaring start if Shanahan makes that trade.

BroncoInferno
04-26-2011, 07:19 PM
I don't see where they have near enough ammunition. #10, #41, a 2012 1st....that still isn't enough, really. I can't see Shanny giving up the farm for Gabbert, especially given the current state of the Redskins roster.

baja
04-26-2011, 07:26 PM
Shanny will trade first with AZ than trade that pick to us for a future #1 draft choice

He'll give AZ McNab plus another player and draft choice.

TheReverend
04-26-2011, 07:30 PM
And LOL @ rugby.

A very common theme for him

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-26-2011, 07:37 PM
I think it's more than just a rumor. We've been hearing this one since the start of the offseason... that's an awful lot of smoke to have no fire attached.

That said, I don't want to move back that far. I worry about the reports that we're super interested in Fairley. Just think the red flags with that guy are off the charts.

Lestat
04-26-2011, 07:40 PM
i don't have an issue with dropping back to 10. Miller,Peterson,Quinn,Fairley,Watt,Smith,Liuget & maybe if the draft gods worked out well, Dareus might/should still be there.
we need a lot of talent from this draft, not just from round 1 but rounds 1-5.
if you can pick up a future pick + grab a player you like and save $$$ then that's great. i'd rather drop down to 5 and still potentially be assured of Dareus but talent is talent and more picks means more talent.

HILife
04-26-2011, 07:40 PM
Come on AZ make us an offer we can't refuse

Three way trade.

Broncos:
-move back to 5th
-Get Redskins 3rd
-Get Redskins next years 5th

Arizona:
-Move back to 10th
-Get McNabb
-Redskins next years 4th

Redskins:
-Get #2 pick.

Edit: I keep going back and forth on the 5th.

Chris
04-26-2011, 07:41 PM
Three way trade.

Broncos:
-move back to 5th
-Get Redskins 3rd

Arizona:
-Move back to 10th
-Get McNabb
-Redskins next years 4th

Redskins:
-Get #2 pick.

Well this would fit with Fitz saying he wants a veteran QB. Nice thinking here except I think the Cards would want more than a 4th.

JDub15
04-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Agreed that Fairly is barely touchable in the first round... certainly not a top 15 pick.

If we drop-down, Cameron Jordan and Phil Taylor would be at the top of my wish list.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 07:42 PM
That trade is horrendous

Missouribronc
04-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Three way trade.

Broncos:
-move back to 5th
-Get Redskins 3rd
-Get Redskins next years 5th

Arizona:
-Move back to 10th
-Get McNabb
-Redskins next years 4th

Redskins:
-Get #2 pick.

Honestly, that's a damn good sounding trade, imo. Why have we never seen this in the NFL? Not allowed? (Minus the whole players probably won't be traded bit)

HILife
04-26-2011, 07:47 PM
That trade is horrendous

Why? Because Broncos not robing the Redskins? Only moving from 2nd to 5th.

EDIT: Damn, I forgot about the CBA. Can't trade players.

Lestat
04-26-2011, 07:49 PM
one trade takes to long most of the time since you're talking to 3-4 teams about going up or down. if you do a three way that's just crazy kind of a complicated that might end in a skipped pick.
Honestly, that's a damn good sounding trade, imo. Why have we never seen this in the NFL? Not allowed? (Minus the whole players probably won't be traded bit)

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 07:50 PM
Why? Because Broncos not robing the Redskins? Only moving from 2nd to 5th.

Because it's just a 3rd round pick to move down to 5? This is the 2nd overall, not the 22nd overall.

The Skins move to the 2nd from 10th for a worthless, old QB, a 3rd and a future 4th.

Both FOs in Denver and AZ should be fired on the spot if they accept anything like that.

Tim
04-26-2011, 07:52 PM
trading out of a top draft pick is a good idea with the draft class this year. After dareus goes to carolina it will be even better.

HILife
04-26-2011, 07:55 PM
Honestly, that's a damn good sounding trade, imo. Why have we never seen this in the NFL? Not allowed? (Minus the whole players probably won't be traded bit)

There have been three way trades before. Denver did one a few years ago eventually get Jay Cutler, if I remember correctly.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 07:56 PM
No. The 3-way trade was Lelie, Duckett and Skins picks

And adding a 5th doesn't change how bad that trade was. The Skins give up nothing of real value at all.

broncos-rock
04-26-2011, 07:57 PM
I don't see where they have near enough ammunition. #10, #41, a 2012 1st....that still isn't enough, really. I can't see Shanny giving up the farm for Gabbert, especially given the current state of the Redskins roster.

Maybe he thinks there only one player away.....oh wait that's what he said in Denver for the last 7 years he was here.

HILife
04-26-2011, 08:02 PM
No. The 3-way trade was Lelie, Duckett and Skins picks

And adding a 5th doesn't change how bad that trade was. The Skins give up nothing of real value at all.

negative. I'm talking about the atlanta, jets and broncos trade when Denver moved to 15.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2378875

Atlanta sent its first-round choice, the 15th pick overall in this year's draft, to Denver, for the Broncos' first-round choice next month, No. 29 overall. The Falcons also picked up a pair of middle-round choices in the transaction, a third-round selection in 2006 and a fourth-rounder in 2007. The Falcons then shipped the 29th pick acquired from Denver to the Jets in exchange for Abraham, a three-time Pro Bowl pass rusher.

Regarding your second comment. To each their own.

WolfpackGuy
04-26-2011, 08:05 PM
negative. I'm talking about the atlanta, jets and broncos trade when Denver moved to 15.

Yeah, John Abraham trade.

HILife
04-26-2011, 08:05 PM
Yeah, John Abraham trade.

that's the one.

KevinJames
04-26-2011, 08:06 PM
noooooo dont drop to 10!!!

WolfpackGuy
04-26-2011, 08:07 PM
that's the one.

Actually, that 2006 move for Cutler started in 2005 when Denver traded out of the first so the Skins could pick Carlos Rogers.

HILife
04-26-2011, 08:10 PM
Well this would fit with Fitz saying he wants a veteran QB. Nice thinking here except I think the Cards would want more than a 4th.

3rd?

HAT
04-26-2011, 09:26 PM
Because it's just a 3rd round pick to move down to 5? This is the 2nd overall, not the 22nd overall.

The Skins move to the 2nd from 10th for a worthless, old QB, a 3rd and a future 4th.

Both FOs in Denver and AZ should be fired on the spot if they accept anything like that.

Not to mention that Washington doesn't even have a 3rd rounder this year.
???

Taco John
04-26-2011, 09:29 PM
We don't need Donovan McNabb to back up Tebow when we have both Orton and Quinn to do it.

broncocalijohn
04-26-2011, 09:32 PM
I'm probably in the minority in not minding dropping to #10 one iota....Provided Denver gets full value and then some. Washington just doesn't have the ammo. #41 is all they could offer this year. Not sure if #41 plus a 2012 first is worth it. (Even though it's likely to be a top 10 pick again in 2012)

That is why the only way this happens is if Redskins moves from #10 to #3 -#7. They dont have enough in draft picks this year so only way to accomplish this is to include current players. I dont think I would want to move from #2 to #10. Who could they offer up currently on their roster that would be compensation?

Hamrob
04-26-2011, 09:39 PM
I would do this in a heartbeat if it's possible. I'd take Fairley at 10 if he's available or trade back (again) for more picks.

Dareus is not the answer people. There are guys in the teens that might be equally as valuable down the line (2-3yrs).

We could gain a 1st next year and other depth picks...if we were smart enough to trade back.

If I give credit to McD and Xanders for anything...it's last years draft.

They got Thomas...who many mock's had us taking at 11 and Tebow for our 1st round pick. Then they added Beadles and Walton. That was good work in the first 3 rounds!!!

We need to be agressive and take some chances to make this years draft work.

cabronco
04-26-2011, 09:45 PM
I don't think Shanahan can run fast enough to give us McNabb. So forget about it skins ! Thats about the last thing we need is another QB.

HAT
04-26-2011, 09:54 PM
I would do this in a heartbeat if it's possible. I'd take Fairley at 10 if he's available or trade back (again) for more picks.

Dareus is not the answer people. There are guys in the teens that might be equally as valuable down the line (2-3yrs).

We could gain a 1st next year and other depth picks...if we were smart enough to trade back.

If I give credit to McD and Xanders for anything...it's last years draft.

They got Thomas...who many mock's had us taking at 11 and Tebow for our 1st round pick. Then they added Beadles and Walton. That was good work in the first 3 rounds!!!

We need to be agressive and take some chances to make this years draft work.

For sure.....In fact, if it did happen and Jones is still OTB you may as well call the Rams and see if they'd be interested in coming up for him in exchange for their 3rd. They'd have to believe Minny was interested at 12 though.

#14 (Rams), 36, 41 (Skins), 46, 67, 78 (Rams) plus the 'Skins 1st rounder in 2012 works for me.

IHaveALight
04-26-2011, 10:05 PM
Some of you guys are really undervaluing the #2 pick. According to the draft value chart the #2 pick is 2600 points and the #10 pick is 1300 points. Which means it would take 2 #10 picks to get the #2 pick! If the Redskins really want to land the #2 pick it's going cost them a whole hell of a lot.
I'm thinking something like this years whole draft plus a 1 and 2 next year. Or the #10 pick, 2012 1st rounder and 2013 1st rounder.

cutthemdown
04-26-2011, 10:06 PM
If its true it means we are getting the skins first rounder next yr as part of deal.

titan
04-26-2011, 10:07 PM
Actually, that 2006 move for Cutler started in 2005 when Denver traded out of the first so the Skins could pick Carlos Rogers.

True that started in 2005, but the Skins took Jason Campbell with the #1 they got from Denver.

At the time I thought that was a great trade for Denver, and rooted for the Skins to lose in 2006. They did (finishing 5-11) and their #1 draft position helped give the Broncos enough ammunition to trade up to take Cutler.

TheReverend
04-26-2011, 10:12 PM
I would do this in a heartbeat if it's possible. I'd take Fairley at 10 if he's available or trade back (again) for more picks.

Dareus is not the answer people. There are guys in the teens that might be equally as valuable down the line (2-3yrs).

We could gain a 1st next year and other depth picks...if we were smart enough to trade back.

If I give credit to McD and Xanders for anything...it's last years draft.

They got Thomas...who many mock's had us taking at 11 and Tebow for our 1st round pick. Then they added Beadles and Walton. That was good work in the first 3 rounds!!!

We need to be agressive and take some chances to make this years draft work.

Dude... I'll be impressed if you can find mocks where he's even referred to as a first rounder.

From what I remember, he was always an early 2nd round guy, which coincidentally is where the Cowboys had him (accidentally revealed shot of their board on draft day lol):

http://i44.tinypic.com/2iitxcn.jpg

uplink
04-26-2011, 10:13 PM
That said, I don't want to move back that far. I worry about the reports that we're super interested in Fairley. Just think the red flags with that guy are off the charts.

"This is what you call May day in Moscow. " -B. Parcells from his ESPN draft show (the show was awesome)

HAT
04-26-2011, 10:14 PM
Some of you guys are really undervaluing the #2 pick. According to the draft value chart the #2 pick is 2600 points and the #10 pick is 1300 points. Which means it would take 2 #10 picks to get the #2 pick! If the Redskins really want to land the #2 pick it's going cost them a whole hell of a lot.
I'm thinking something like this years whole draft plus a 1 and 2 next year. Or the #10 pick, 2012 1st rounder and 2013 1st rounder.

And you are overvaluing it. If you're going to use the chart as a starting point then #10 & 41 this year plus their 2012 1st is perfectly reasonable.

10 & 41 is 1790 which leaves a deficit of 810.....Roughly the equivalent of the #21 pick. The Skins are a middle of the pack team at best next year IMO so actually Denver would be getting +200-500 chart value if the pick is in the 10-15 range......Which would make up for the fact that future picks are valued a little less.

uplink
04-26-2011, 10:15 PM
I think Xanders likes Fairly, but the broncos could trade down 5 spots and still take him. I think he may even be there at #10 if they trade with the skins.

Broncoman13
04-26-2011, 10:21 PM
There are four players the Broncos like in this draft. Peterson, Fairley, Miller and Dareus. In theory, they could trade down to 10 for the Skins 2nd rounder this year and first rounder next year. At 10, it is pretty easy to move back up in the top 5 or 6... Probably would only cost a 2nd rounder. So, they could potentially go from say 2 to 10 then up to 7 and the net sum gain would be a 2012 first round pick. At 7 you have a decent shot at Peterson and Fairley.

Figure a draft with the Skins at 2 would look something like this:
1 Cam Newton
2 Gabbert
3 Dareus
4 AJ Green
5 Von Miller
6 Julio Jones
7 (San Fran's pick) could be had with Peterson and Fairley available.

I have also heard a few rumors lately that the Broncos do in fact like Quinn, so staying at 10, drafting Quinn there or perhaps even Fairley should Tennessee pass on him. Then you keep your three 2nd round pick AND have the two firsts next year.

The talent at 2 is great if you're going to draft Peterson or Miller, the two truly elite prospects in this draft. If those two aren't going to be the pick, then please trade down to 10 or even 11 with Houston who absolutely does want to move up.

Ps, if players were available to be traded, it had better not be McNabb making the deal... Give me a guy like Rogers or Cooley, or even Haynesworth rather than McNabb.

IHaveALight
04-26-2011, 10:32 PM
And you are overvaluing it. If you're going to use the chart as a starting point then #10 & 41 this year plus their 2012 1st is perfectly reasonable.

10 & 41 is 1790 which leaves a deficit of 810.....Roughly the equivalent of the #21 pick. The Skins are a middle of the pack team at best next year IMO so actually Denver would be getting +200-500 chart value if the pick is in the 10-15 range......Which would make up for the fact that future picks are valued a little less.

You're overvaluing future picks. A future 1st round pick = a current 2nd round pick in value. A future 2nd round pick = a current 3rd round pick.
But yeah my guess of this years whole draft plus a 1 and 2 next year is too much.

Houshyamama
04-26-2011, 10:37 PM
Haynesworth?

HAT
04-26-2011, 10:44 PM
A future 1st round pick = a current 2nd round pick in value. .

Then why was 90% of this board so pissed when McD traded a future 1st for a current 2nd? :thumbs:

It wasn't the actual pick that everyone hated.....It was the "value". According to your definition, McD owned that trade because he got the 5th pick of the second round for 14th pick of the future 1st, :rofl:

IHaveALight
04-26-2011, 10:45 PM
And you are overvaluing it. If you're going to use the chart as a starting point then #10 & 41 this year plus their 2012 1st is perfectly reasonable.

10 & 41 is 1790 which leaves a deficit of 810.....Roughly the equivalent of the #21 pick. The Skins are a middle of the pack team at best next year IMO so actually Denver would be getting +200-500 chart value if the pick is in the 10-15 range......Which would make up for the fact that future picks are valued a little less.


You're overvaluing future picks. A future 1st round pick = a current 2nd round pick in value. A future 2nd round pick = a current 3rd round pick.
But yeah my guess of this years whole draft plus a 1 and 2 next year is too much.


Their 1st and 2nd this year and 1st and 2nd next year would be 2635.

IHaveALight
04-26-2011, 10:51 PM
Then why was 90% of this board so pissed when McD traded a future 1st for a current 2nd? :thumbs:

It wasn't the actual pick that everyone hated.....It was the "value". According to your definition, McD owned that trade because he got the 5th pick of the second round for 14th pick of the future 1st, :rofl:

I hated it. Other teams have traded future 1st round picks for 2nd round picks too. That's what the value is. If you want to acquire a 2nd round pick without moving up from a lower pick it's going to cost you a future 1st.

broncos-rock
04-27-2011, 12:06 AM
Haynesworth?

Albert Haynesworth - DL - Redskins
Albert Haynesworth was indicted Tuesday on a misdemeanor sexual abuse charge stemming from an incident in February.
After dining at the W Hotel in Washington, Haynesworth allegedly "grabbed and caressed" his waitress' breast. Her hands were full, so she granted Haynesworth's request to slip his credit card into her shirt. Upon receiving the green light, Haynesworth apparently stole second base. A conviction could result in up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

NUB
04-27-2011, 12:20 AM
I hated it. Other teams have traded future 1st round picks for 2nd round picks too. That's what the value is. If you want to acquire a 2nd round pick without moving up from a lower pick it's going to cost you a future 1st.

It's a bad move if your team sucks not to mention there are better ways to get back into the 2nd round (pretty sure Carolina did it in that same draft without blowing a future first; right before we tossed out a bunch of picks to pick up Quinn, IIRC).

Hulamau
04-27-2011, 01:30 AM
I think this is a legit rumor... only what could they give up? Their first and Donovan McNabb?

Players arent for trade in this draft ... not allowed.. only present and future picks

And from what I've read there is no signing of Undrafted FAs as soon as the draft is over either . :-(! We always seemed to pick up one or two potential players, depth from among the undrafted and occasional studs like Rod Smith!

colonelbeef
04-27-2011, 01:43 AM
shanarat is at it again. Elway wont fall for his tricks.

have some ****ing respect for the guy who got Elway his rings, moron

baja
04-27-2011, 02:04 AM
have some ****ing respect for the guy who got Elway his rings, moron

I think he was paying Mike a complement for being a crafty trader.

baja
04-27-2011, 02:12 AM
Mike couldn't draft for shiit and his FA signings were mostly head scratchers but he damn sure could get the best of any GM in a trade. All the first two do is speak to what a great coach he is given he was handicapped by such a ****ty GM.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 04:27 AM
It's a bad move if your team sucks not to mention there are better ways to get back into the 2nd round (pretty sure Carolina did it in that same draft without blowing a future first; right before we tossed out a bunch of picks to pick up Quinn, IIRC).

carolina moved to the 89 pick to get armanti edwards by giving up a future 2, or this years first pick in roun 2

FireFly
04-27-2011, 04:45 AM
I would bet my house on the us not swapping spots with the Redskins in the first.

This close to the draft, no one knows what is happening.

The Moops
04-27-2011, 04:58 AM
Love the Shanny. Moving up to take Cutler, I mean, Gabbert so we get a ton of picks!

Probably next year's 1st to boot.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 06:22 AM
Players arent for trade in this draft ... not allowed.. only present and future picks

And from what I've read there is no signing of Undrafted FAs as soon as the draft is over either . :-(! We always seemed to pick up one or two potential players, depth from among the undrafted and occasional studs like Rod Smith!

Those were the rules BEFORE the lockout was lifted by Judge Nelson.

Broncoman13
04-27-2011, 06:22 AM
I think this is a manufactured rumor and Shanny, Kubes, and Elway are all in on it. I think the Broncos would like to move back a little bit and would like to still get one of their big 4. Shanny I believe wants Jake Locker and is putting up smoke screens to make people think he wants Gabbert. Kubes would love to get Von Miller, but they would gladly take Robert Quinn.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 06:49 AM
Those were the rules BEFORE the lockout was lifted by Judge Nelson.

Technically, yes, but it's looks pretty clear the owners aren't going to start moving players unless they lose their appeal.

Broncoman13
04-27-2011, 06:57 AM
This is going to be a crazy draft, especially on the back side of the first round. There will be plenty of trades for teams to move up and get guys like Christian Ponder, Andy Dalton, and Colin Kapernick... yes, I think Kapernick will end up being a first round pick when all is said and done.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 07:00 AM
Technically, yes, but it's looks pretty clear the owners aren't going to start moving players unless they lose their appeal.

I'm not so sure that it's clear. It's only been a day. If someone dangles a talented defender in front of Denver with a sweet package of picks for the ability to move up to #2, I'd be more than willing to bet that all gentlemen's agreements will be put aside.

txtebow
04-27-2011, 07:21 AM
Do it! Get a #1 from Washington for 2012..then we parlay that with our top 5 #1 after we go 4-12 again this year and then we get Andrew Luck! BRILLIANT

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 07:35 AM
Three way trade.

Broncos:
-move back to 5th
-Get Redskins 3rd
-Get Redskins next years 5th

Arizona:
-Move back to 10th
-Get McNabb
-Redskins next years 4th

Redskins:
-Get #2 pick.

Edit: I keep going back and forth on the 5th.

That's horrible. So the Broncos go from #2 to #5.....that's a 900 point value drop. And you're suggesting that we only get a 3rd and a 5th rounder?!?!?! The top 3rd round pick is 265 points, the top 5th round pick is 43 points....for a total of only 308....not 900. 900 points could easily be TWO SECOND ROUNDERS.....certainly not a 3rd and a 5th.

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 08:00 AM
have some ****ing respect for the guy who got Elway his rings, moron

Stop living in the past and get over the guy who had us cemented in mediocrity for a decade.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 08:03 AM
I'm not so sure that it's clear. It's only been a day. If someone dangles a talented defender in front of Denver with a sweet package of picks for the ability to move up to #2, I'd be more than willing to bet that all gentlemen's agreements will be put aside.

We'll see, I guess. I'd be very surprised if any players are moved before or during the draft, but I guess anything is possible.

jhns
04-27-2011, 08:05 AM
Stop living in the past and get over the guy who had us cemented in mediocrity for a decade.

Why would you hate on all time Bronco greats? What a wonderful group of "fans"...

I'm sure it has been said but you will never know what Shanahan is doing before he does it. These rumors are pointless.

HAT
04-27-2011, 08:29 AM
have some ****ing respect for the guy who got Elway his rings, moron

Got mad respect for that guy!

http://www.footballnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/terrell-davis.jpg

Requiem
04-27-2011, 08:30 AM
Dan Neil 4 LYFE.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-27-2011, 09:15 AM
The framework of the deal per at least one insider at Extremeskins:

#2

for

#10
2012 1st
2012 3rd

That gives me pause. I don't think a 2012 3rd is really all that valuable and I think the Broncos should at least be trying to get an additional 2011 pick.

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 09:16 AM
The framework of the deal per at least one insider at Extremeskins:

#2

for

#10
2012 1st
2012 3rd

That gives me pause. I don't think a 2012 3rd is really all that valuable and I think the Broncos should at least be trying to get an additional 2011 pick.

Totally agree. If we move from #2 to #10.....I want at least one additional pick THIS year.....not have them all be next year.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 09:17 AM
The framework of the deal per at least one insider at Extremeskins:

#2

for

#10
2012 1st
2012 3rd

That gives me pause. I don't think a 2012 3rd is really all that valuable and I think the Broncos should at least be trying to get an additional 2011 pick.

I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole. They'd have to throw in a defensive starter (I know, I know) and another pick in 2011 to make me even think about it for more than a second.

TheReverend
04-27-2011, 09:20 AM
Got mad respect for that guy!

http://www.footballnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/terrell-davis.jpg

Just don't, please.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 09:23 AM
The framework of the deal per at least one insider at Extremeskins:

#2

for

#10
2012 1st
2012 3rd

That gives me pause. I don't think a 2012 3rd is really all that valuable and I think the Broncos should at least be trying to get an additional 2011 pick.

They've got to give us #41, too, or at least upgrade the 2012 3rd to a 2nd and give us their two 5ths (they don't have a 3rd or 4th). We can't trade all the way down to #10 and not get a single extra 2011 selection out of it, especially given the possibility (however remote) that the 2012 draft will never take place.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 09:25 AM
I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole. They'd have to throw in a defensive starter (I know, I know) and another pick in 2011 to make me even think about it for more than a second.

I tend to agree, but I think the Skins are going to be pretty terrible next season. That roster is a mess. I'm thinking that 1st is a near lock to be a top 10 pick, possibly top 5.

TheReverend
04-27-2011, 09:45 AM
I tend to agree, but I think the Skins are going to be pretty terrible next season. That roster is a mess. I'm thinking that 1st is a near lock to be a top 10 pick, possibly top 5.

No thanks.

That guy had Jake Plummer one game away from the SB and a ring. I have no doubts he can continue to have Grossman be productive if that's all they can do.

As far as their roster... they already nabbed Atogwe and it's going to be a wild and VERY fruitful FA period with a lot of premier players available thanks to the litigation. Somehow Washington is going to walk with a dickload of talent (again), only this time have a coach capable of using it.

I wouldnt trust a future pick to be below #20 as far as I can pick up and throw Kris Jenkins (0 inches).

Broncoman13
04-27-2011, 09:49 AM
I would be very disappointed with the trade Herc posted. I'm not sure I would be happy with a drop to 10 with #41 and everything else listed.

I do like the idea of getting a 2012 First rounder in a trade. But not at that price, we would be getting raped, Shanny style.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 09:52 AM
No thanks.

That guy had Jake Plummer one game away from the SB and a ring. I have no doubts he can continue to have Grossman be productive if that's all they can do.

As far as their roster... they already nabbed Atogwe and it's going to be a wild and VERY fruitful FA period with a lot of premier players available thanks to the litigation. Somehow Washington is going to walk with a dickload of talent (again), only this time have a coach capable of using it.

I wouldnt trust a future pick to be below #20 as far as I can pick up and throw Kris Jenkins (0 inches).

I think the game has passed Shanny by. He has no clue how to build an NFL defense anymore. If he starts a rookie or Grossman at QB, they aren't winning many games. When has being aggressive in FA ever helped Washington? Hell, that approach didn't work for Shanny after SB years. He was agressive as hell after Cutler's rookie year (Graham, Dre Bly, Travis Henry,etc), and we went 7-9.

2KBack
04-27-2011, 09:53 AM
No thanks.

That guy had Jake Plummer one game away from the SB and a ring. I have no doubts he can continue to have Grossman be productive if that's all they can do.

As far as their roster... they already nabbed Atogwe and it's going to be a wild and VERY fruitful FA period with a lot of premier players available thanks to the litigation. Somehow Washington is going to walk with a dickload of talent (again), only this time have a coach capable of using it.

I wouldnt trust a future pick to be below #20 as far as I can pick up and throw Kris Jenkins (0 inches).

That was like 6 years ago dude. I give him full credit as a football coach, and maybe he can shine again, but I can say that the Redskins fans I know are already skeptical. They are trying to figure out why such a successful coach makes so many odd decisions.

All the great coaches fade away eventually...we may be watching Shanahan's time

SonOfLe-loLang
04-27-2011, 09:59 AM
The framework of the deal per at least one insider at Extremeskins:

#2

for

#10
2012 1st
2012 3rd

That gives me pause. I don't think a 2012 3rd is really all that valuable and I think the Broncos should at least be trying to get an additional 2011 pick.

This would be a joke. It would HAVE to include 41 and, for me, one of their 5ths. Come back with that and ill consider it.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Shanahan improves the team in one offseason and people think he is going to get worse after a second? Weird theory.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:02 AM
No thanks.

That guy had Jake Plummer one game away from the SB and a ring. I have no doubts he can continue to have Grossman be productive if that's all they can do.

As far as their roster... they already nabbed Atogwe and it's going to be a wild and VERY fruitful FA period with a lot of premier players available thanks to the litigation. Somehow Washington is going to walk with a dickload of talent (again), only this time have a coach capable of using it.

I wouldnt trust a future pick to be below #20 as far as I can pick up and throw Kris Jenkins (0 inches).

Yah, and then drafted Cutler and destroyed the chemistry of the team. In his first season as the HC of the Skins he managed to destroy a very good defense.

As for his relationship with McNabb, that too is a real mystery. Why trade for McNabb and then give up on him in one season? Was this Shanahan's doing or Allen's or Snyders?

The Skins have more questions now than before Shanahan.

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 10:03 AM
I think the game has passed Shanny by. He has no clue how to build an NFL defense anymore. If he starts a rookie or Grossman at QB, they aren't winning many games. When has being aggressive in FA ever helped Washington? Hell, that approach didn't work for Shanny after SB years. He was agressive as hell after Cutler's rookie year (Graham, Dre Bly, Travis Henry,etc), and we went 7-9.

Blasphemy!!

You are about to receive the wrath of jhns and privatebeefcurtains.......

:rofl:

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:07 AM
Yah, and then drafted Cutler and destroyed the chemistry of the team. In his first season as the HC of the Skins he managed to destroy a very good defense.

As for his relationship with McNabb, that too is a real mystery. Why trade for McNabb and then give up on him in one season? Was this Shanahan's doing or Allen's or Snyders?

The Skins have more questions now than before Shanahan.

The skins were better last season than the season before. This is in his first year, where both sides of the ball are learning new systems and he is still figuring out who fits his systems.

With these facts, you claim they are worse off.

I guess I get why all the Shanahan haters were McDaniels fans....

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:13 AM
The skins were better last season than the season before. This is in his first year, where both sides of the ball are learning new systems and he is still figuring out who fits his systems.

With these facts, you claim they are worse off.

I guess I get why all the Shanahan haters were McDaniels fans....

I'm pointing out the fact that the Skins have major questions and that Shanny has not stablized anything. They have turmoil at the QB position, their defense is in dissarray and they don't have many draft picks.

But all is well. Nothing to see here, move along.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 10:16 AM
Blasphemy!!

You are about to receive the wrath of jhns and privatebeefcurtains.......

:rofl:

Hey, I love Shanny. I defended him all the way up until the end. I even defended some of his crappy drafts. But the game passes everyone by eventually. He had a good run, but his teams have been a mess the last 4 seasons he's coached (2006-2008 in Denver, 2010 in Washington). I mean, Washington actually had the makings of a pretty good 4-3 defense, then he comes in and inexplicably decides to switch to the 3-4 and they go to absolute ****. You would think that, given Shanny's inexperience with the 3-4, he would bring in 3-4 disciple (e.g. Dom Capers or someone of that ilk). Instead he brings in Haslett, who hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s when he was with Pittsburgh (ran a 4-3 with New Orleans and St. Louis). It reeks of hubris. Hey, if he gets things rolling in Washington, I'll admit I'm wrong and tp my hat to him. But I don't see it happening.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:17 AM
I'm pointing out the fact that the Skins have major questions and that Shanny has not stablized anything. They have turmoil at the QB position, their defense is in dissarray and they don't have many draft picks.

But all is well. Nothing to see here, move along.

So how is being better = being worse off? You mean the fact that he didn't fix everything on a 4 win team, in one offseason, shows that he doesn't know what he is doing? What a silly argument. What you seem to be claiming is that the four win team had the QB position figured out, and didn't have questions everywhere.... Interesting theory...

"I am a McDaniels fan. Worse = better and better = worse!"

Requiem
04-27-2011, 10:23 AM
Hard not to best four wins. Not much of an improvement.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 10:23 AM
So how is being better = being worse off? You mean the fact that he didn't fix everything on a 4 win team, in one offseason, shows that he doesn't know what he is doing? What a silly argument. What you seem to be claiming is that the four win team had the QB position figured out, and didn't have questions everywhere.... Interesting theory...

"I am a McDaniels fan. Worse = better and better = worse!"

They're not better. A meager two game swing from 4 to 6 wins is only "better" in the technical sense. They have FAR more roster questions now than when Shanny arrived, in part because he blew up a pretty 4-3 defense to run a 3-4. The D went to absolute **** last season. They have big questions at Qb. At WR. On the OL. Pretty much up and down the roster. He gutted their draft to get McNabb, who he's already given up on. Now he's talking about trading up for a QB in a year when the top prospects are underwhelming, which would further gut his draft resources to replinish the roster. Only an ingnoramous can conclude that Washington has "improved" in any meaningful way so far under Shanny.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:24 AM
So how is being better = being worse off? You mean the fact that he didn't fix everything on a 4 win team, in one offseason, shows that he doesn't know what he is doing? What a silly argument. What you seem to be claiming is that the four win team had the QB position figured out, and didn't have questions everywhere.... Interesting theory...

"I am a McDaniels fan. Worse = better and better = worse!"

He didn't need to "fix" the defense. You b**** and moan about what McD did to the Broncos prestine offense, claiming it didn't need to be "fixed" yet you ignore what Shanny did to the skins defense and see it as no big deal. You have a huge double standard when it comes to Shanny.

But whatever, you love Shanny, you want to have his love child and you live in Nebraska. I get it. You're a moron.

Move on please, nothing to see here. Shanahan to the rescue!

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:25 AM
Hey, I love Shanny. I defended him all the way up until the end. I even defended some of his crappy drafts. But the game passes everyone by eventually. He had a good run, but his teams have been a mess the last 4 seasons he's coached (2006-2008 in Denver, 2010 in Washington). I mean, Washington actually had the makings of a pretty good 4-3 defense, then he comes in and inexplicably decides to switch to the 3-4 and they go to absolute ****. You would think that, given Shanny's inexperience with the 3-4, he would bring in 3-4 disciple (e.g. Dom Capers or someone of that ilk). Instead he brings in Haslett, who hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s when he was with Pittsburgh (ran a 4-3 with New Orleans and St. Louis). It reeks of hubris. Hey, if he gets things rolling in Washington, I'll admit I'm wrong and tp my hat to him. But I don't see it happening.

That four win team did not have a good defense. That team just had that bad of an offense. Look it up. Teams were blowing them out after scoring two TDs. Notice how their run defense sucked and pass defense had ok numbers? That is because teams stopped passing after taking double digit leads early.

Fact: That team got better in one offseason. This, while changing schemes on both sides of the ball...

How can you ruin something and make it better at the same time? I like how you claim that Washington being a mess shows that the game passed him by though. That four win team was looking pretty good before he got there! LOL...

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 10:28 AM
That four win team did not have a good defense. That team just had that bad of an offense. Look it up. Teams were blowing them out after scoring two TDs. Notice how their run defense sucked and pass defense had ok numbers? That is because teams stopped passing after taking double digit leads early.

Fact: That team got better in one offseason. This, while changing schemes on both sides of the ball...

How can you ruin something and make it better at the same time? I like how you claim that Washington being a mess shows that the game passed him by though. That four win team was looking pretty good before he got there! LOL...

you are so beyond help, its incredible. you just twisted every single argument he made to fit your narrow scope of what you think he should have said. its like people arent allowed to criticize a single thing shanahan has EVER done with you around at all without some level of crying.

baja
04-27-2011, 10:28 AM
That four win team did not have a good defense. That team just had that bad of an offense. Look it up. Teams were blowing them out after scoring two TDs. Notice how their run defense sucked and pass defense had ok numbers? That is because teams stopped passing after taking double digit leads early.

Fact: That team got better in one offseason. This, while changing schemes on both sides of the ball...

How can you ruin something and make it better at the same time? I like how you claim that Washington being a mess shows that the game passed him by though. That four win team was looking pretty good before he got there! LOL...

No pesky gray areas for you....

Dexter
04-27-2011, 10:28 AM
Maybe we are trying to put ourselves in position for Andrew Luck next year if Tebow doesn't make great strides this year.

Still I'd want their second rounder this year.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:30 AM
He didn't need to "fix" the defense. You b**** and moan about what McD did to the Broncos prestine offense, claiming it didn't need to be "fixed" yet you ignore what Shanny did to the skins defense and see it as no big deal. You have a huge double standard when it comes to Shanny.

But whatever, you love Shanny, you want to have his love child and you live in Nebraska. I get it. You're a moron.

Move on please, nothing to see here. Shanahan to the rescue!

He didn't need to fix the defense on a four win team? That defense is being compared to an offense that carried this franchises worst ever defense to an 8-8 record?

Lets skip all of these facts and get to the only one that matters. Mcdaniels tanked this francgise. We just came off the franchises worst ever season. Shanahan improved his teams record in a single offseason and has yet to show he won't continue doing the same.
Real comparable...

Requiem
04-27-2011, 10:31 AM
By "wins" he "improved" the team, but there is more to it than that.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:34 AM
you are so beyond help, its incredible. you just twisted every single argument he made to fit your narrow scope of what you think he should have said. its like people arent allowed to criticize a single thing shanahan has EVER done with you around at all without some level of crying.

The critisism that Washington is worse off than when he got there is fair? This is true even though every fact shows different?

You are right. McDaniels fans trashing Shanahan will always make me cry. How can you defend everything McDaniels did and then trash the guy that has never once had a top 5 pick, even after taking over a top 5 pick team?

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:37 AM
He didn't need to fix the defense on a four win team? That defense is being compared to an offense that carried this franchises worst ever defense to an 8-8 record?

Lets skip all of these facts and get to the only one that matters. Mcdaniels tanked this francgise. We just came off the franchises worst ever season. Shanahan improved his teams record in a single offseason and has yet to show he won't continue doing the same.
Real comparable...

I agree the McD was in way over his head but this is more of a poor reflection on the Broncos front office than on McD. When Shanny left, Bowlen and his front office was not set up to fill the void and hiring a young offensive HC with no management experience in football operations was a big mistake. That being said, it has lead to a complete overhaul of the Broncos Football Operations and a new power structure that has more checks and balances.

As for your love of all things Shanahan, please go follow the Skins. I've repeatedly asked you why you remain a Broncos fan when your allegience is with Shanahan.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:37 AM
By "wins" he "improved" the team, but there is more to it than that.

No, I would say that is all there is. He will only be considered a failure there if they don't continue to improve in wins.

If you can't gauge success with wins, what exactly do you use? Stat rankings?

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:40 AM
I agree the McD was in way over his head but this is more of a poor reflection on the Broncos front office than on McD. When Shanny left, Bowlen and his front office was not set up to fill the void and hiring a young offensive HC with no management experience in football operations was a big mistake. That being said, it has lead to a complete overhaul of the Broncos Football Operations and a new power structure that has more checks and balances.

As for your love of all things Shanahan, please go follow the Skins. I've repeatedly asked you why you remain a Broncos fan when your allegience is with Shanahan.

You supported McDaniels. Why don't you go follow the raiders? You are clearly a raiders fan. I know Bronco fans don't like seeing the Broncos continually embarrassed...

2KBack
04-27-2011, 10:40 AM
What does McD's failure have to do with Shanahan not being the coach he once was?

Requiem
04-27-2011, 10:41 AM
The issue was improvement, not success. If you think that "wins" are all that matters in assessing where a football club is headed, more power to you.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:43 AM
What does McD's failure have to do with Shanahan not being the coach he once was?

It doesn't. But pointing out that those talking **** about Shanahan were also always defending horrible moves, does show how credible these takes are...

"Worse = better and better = worse!" says the McDaniels fan.

TheReverend
04-27-2011, 10:43 AM
I agree the McD was in way over his head but this is more of a poor reflection on the Broncos front office than on McD. When Shanny left, Bowlen and his front office was not set up to fill the void and hiring a young offensive HC with no management experience in football operations was a big mistake. That being said, it has lead to a complete overhaul of the Broncos Football Operations and a new power structure that has more checks and balances.

As for your love of all things Shanahan, please go follow the Skins. I've repeatedly asked you why you remain a Broncos fan when your allegience is with Shanahan.

You can't understand why a Bronco fan would have the utmost respect for the coach who brought us our only SB victories, put the perfect ending on our hero the Duke's career and had a HoF resume here? ...and after he left the wheels came off spiraling the Broncos into one of the worst stretches in Denver history?

Really?

As for the people saying he's past his time... vehemently disagree. His last season here saw an insane amount of injuries and had us miss the playoffs due to a tie breaker. His only season since saw him improve his current team while installing a vastly different system.

It'll play out over the next couple years. The way I see it he's done nothing but exhibit time and time again that he's still got it, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:44 AM
You supported McDaniels. Why don't you go follow the raiders? You are clearly a raiders fan. I know Bronco fans don't like seeing the Broncos continually embarrassed...

wtf?

the above post is classic jhns material.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:45 AM
wtf?

the above post is classic jhns material.

Thanks raider fan!

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:47 AM
You can't understand why a Bronco fan would have the utmost respect for the coach who brought us our only SB victories, put the perfect ending on our hero the Duke's career and had a HoF resume here? ...and after he left the wheels came off spiraling the Broncos into one of the worst stretches in Denver history?

Really?

As for the people saying he's past his time... vehemently disagree. His last season here saw an insane amount of injuries and had us miss the playoffs due to a tie breaker. His only season since saw him improve his current team while installing a vastly different system.

It'll play out over the next couple years. The way I see it he's done nothing but exhibit time and time again that he's still got it, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to

See, you could point out the obvious like this post... or you can just laugh at the raider fans.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:50 AM
The issue was improvement, not success. If you think that "wins" are all that matters in assessing where a football club is headed, more power to you.

I sure do. If McDaniels had ever improved this team, I wouldn't have had any problem with the moves that I thought were bad. How can you claim they are worse off as they win more games, all while putting completely new coaches and systems in place?

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 10:51 AM
You can't understand why a Bronco fan would have the utmost respect for the coach who brought us our only SB victories, put the perfect ending on our hero the Duke's career and had a HoF resume here? ...and after he left the wheels came off spiraling the Broncos into one of the worst stretches in Denver history?

Really?

As for the people saying he's past his time... vehemently disagree. His last season here saw an insane amount of injuries and had us miss the playoffs due to a tie breaker. His only season since saw him improve his current team while installing a vastly different system.

It'll play out over the next couple years. The way I see it he's done nothing but exhibit time and time again that he's still got it, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to

Everyone gives Shanahan his due, including me. He was the best Broncos HC ever, but he also had his 14 years as the HC and it was time to move on. It's ok acknowledge Shanahan's strengths and also acknowledge his weaknesses.

Fact is, everyone credited Shanahan for the SB victories and claimed that there was no way Elway could have gotten his rings without Mike. Fair enough, Shanahan deserves his props for the 2 SB wins.

That being said, once Elway retired the Broncos were never the same. Couple that with the fact that Shanahan made some lousy FA moves, struggled continuously with the defense, and only had 2 or 3 real strong drafts and I don't think it's unreasonable to say a change was needed.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 10:52 AM
wtf?

the above post is classic jhns material.

pretty much. you arent allowed to say ANYTHING anti-shanahan, he never did anything wrong, and if you say he did, it was someone elses or something elses fault, or it just straight didnt happen. the defense in washington DID get worse from 2009 to 2010, thats undebatable. shanahan changed the defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and during that transition the team got worse, how is that not a result of shanahans change? they might be better this year in year 2 of the scheme, but that doesnt change that the defense got worse from 09 to 10.

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:55 AM
Everyone gives Shanahan his due, including me. He was the best Broncos HC ever, but he also had his 14 years as the HC and it was time to move on. It's ok acknowledge Shanahan's strengths and also acknowledge his weaknesses.

Fact is, everyone credited Shanahan for the SB victories and claimed that there was no way Elway could have gotten his rings without Mike. Fair enough, Shanahan deserves his props for the 2 SB wins.

That being said, once Elway retired the Broncos were never the same. Couple that with the fact that Shanahan made some lousy FA moves, struggled continuously with the defense, and only had 2 or 3 real strong drafts and I don't think it's unreasonable to say a change was needed.

This is a fair assesment. This is not at all what was said when I started laughing at the stupidity in this thread.

TheReverend
04-27-2011, 10:57 AM
Everyone gives Shanahan his due, including me. He was the best Broncos HC ever, but he also had his 14 years as the HC and it was time to move on. It's ok acknowledge Shanahan's strengths and also acknowledge his weaknesses.

Fact is, everyone credited Shanahan for the SB victories and claimed that there was no way Elway could have gotten his rings without Mike. Fair enough, Shanahan deserves his props for the 2 SB wins.

That being said, once Elway retired the Broncos were never the same. Couple that with the fact that Shanahan made some lousy FA moves, struggled continuously with the defense, and only had 2 or 3 real strong drafts and I don't think it's unreasonable to say a change was needed.

Meh, it'll work itself out in time.

Personally, I don't think he gets NEARLY enough respect around here.

They played 4 play off teams last year. They beat 3 of them (and ALMOST beat the 4th-Indy 27-24) last year with a dog**** team (that includes 2 CG teams and the superbowl champions).

jhns
04-27-2011, 10:58 AM
pretty much. you arent allowed to say ANYTHING anti-shanahan, he never did anything wrong, and if you say he did, it was someone elses or something elses fault, or it just straight didnt happen. the defense in washington DID get worse from 2009 to 2010, thats undebatable. shanahan changed the defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and during that transition the team got worse, how is that not a result of shanahans change? they might be better this year in year 2 of the scheme, but that doesnt change that the defense got worse from 09 to 10.

The team got worse as they won more games!

LOL

How does that make sense to you? How am I blaming someone else by calling that a false statement? You need to learn how to read and comprehend what you are reading.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 10:59 AM
The team got worse as they won more games!

LOL

How does that make sense to you? How am I blaming someone else by calling that a false statement? You need to learn how to read and comprehend what you are reading.

team=defense.

jhns
04-27-2011, 11:01 AM
team=defense.

They weren't worse though. They were complete crap before he got there. You just don't understand basic strategy in football.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 11:03 AM
They weren't worse though. They were complete crap before he got there. You just don't understand basic strategy in football.

yes, they were.

2009 YPG: 319
PPG: 21

2010 YPG: 389
PPG: 23

how is that not worse? they WERE worse, you dont understand that you cant make up bull**** reasons as to why they were better when they werent.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-27-2011, 11:03 AM
JFC. Who gives a **** about this stuff anymore?

Rabb
04-27-2011, 11:05 AM
JFC. Who gives a **** about this stuff anymore?

:thanku:

Broncoman13
04-27-2011, 11:22 AM
yes, they were.

2009 YPG: 319
PPG: 21

2010 YPG: 389
PPG: 23

how is that not worse? they WERE worse, you dont understand that you cant make up bull**** reasons as to why they were better when they werent.


Shanahan improved that team more than any other coach ever could have. You don't know what you're talking about. Bet you didn't watch a single Redskins games last year.:charge::poke:

jhns
04-27-2011, 11:34 AM
yes, they were.

2009 YPG: 319
PPG: 21

2010 YPG: 389
PPG: 23

how is that not worse? they WERE worse, you dont understand that you cant make up bull**** reasons as to why they were better when they werent.

There is one simple fact that you are missing. Teams couldn't go into clock killing mode by thevsecond quarter while Shanahan was coach. Again, you don't understand basic football strategy. One units performance does affect the others. Teams base their strategy on what the other team does....

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 11:42 AM
There is one simple fact that you are missing. Teams couldn't go into clock killing mode by thevsecond quarter while Shanahan was coach. Again, you don't understand basic football strategy. One units performance does affect the others. Teams base their strategy on what the other team does....

so the stats are lying and the defense was actually better, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that? got it.

how about this, the higher rankings in 2009 are even more miraculous given how incredibly inept the offense was that year, the fact the defense was able to stay top 10 in yards and top 20 in points allowed is incredible. (2009 PPG = 16.6, 2010=18.9) but again, must be irrelevant.

jhns
04-27-2011, 11:45 AM
[/LEFT]uy96;3166083]so the stats are lying and the defense was actually better, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that? got it.

how about this, the higher rankings in 2009 are even more miraculous given how incredibly inept the offense was that year, the fact the defense was able to stay top 10 in yards and top 20 in points allowed is incredible. (2009 PPG = 16.6, 2010=18.9) but again, must be irrelevant.

LOL

Thanks for proving my point.

Here is some evidence: they won more games.... Spin it all you want, that is the only fact that matters.

Also, where exactly did I claim the defense got better? I have only claimed that they weren't good before he got there and he didn't ruin them. Again, you need to learn how to read. It would really help.

2KBack
04-27-2011, 11:50 AM
Shanahan improved that team more than any other coach ever could have. You don't know what you're talking about. Bet you didn't watch a single Redskins games last year.:charge::poke:

I watched every single one of them (side effect of living here) and the two seasons might as well be interchangeable. With a slight offensive improvement, and a steep defensive downturn. I also watched most of their 2009 games. They lost 8 games in 2009 by less than a touchdown (including an overtime loss to the eventual SB champions). The determination in this area was that if they could get even a little better offensive production they would be on their way (not unlike many around here felt about Denver's D in 2008). All a coach would have had to do was squeeze 3-5 more points out of the offense per game to relieve the pressure on the D, and Wash would have turned around pretty quick (in theory). Any competent coach could have taken over for Zorn the glorified QB coach and improved. Shanahan was in perfect position for himself, had he focused on improving the offense he would have looked like a genius again. Instead he dismantled the only part of the team people around here liked so that the small improvement in the offense was wasted. He immediately started feuding with players, disrespected a HOF QB, and played his typical roster favorites games.

When you are winning Superbowls, people will let these things slide, but he is 13 years removed from those and 6 years removed from the playoffs. He is no longer above question.

jhns
04-27-2011, 11:53 AM
They should just fire him. How could he not fix all of the problems that a four win team has in a single offseason! Them winning more games just shows that he is in over his head!

LOL

How can any of you not realize how dumb you sound?

I still find it funny that those who defended everything McDaniels did are now claiming Shanahan was wrong to change a system on a four win team. You McDaniel fans are just full of fail.

NUB
04-27-2011, 11:56 AM
The Redskins should have been worse this year given that they shot themselves in the foot about ten times. I think Shanahan is a brilliant game-day headcoach, possibly the best in the league, but he produces so many self-inflicted wounds it is absurd.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 11:57 AM
I watched every single one of them (side effect of living here) and the two seasons might as well be interchangeable. With a slight offensive improvement, and a steep defensive downturn. I also watched most of their 2009 games. They lost 8 games in 2009 by less than a touchdown (including an overtime loss to the eventual SB champions). The determination in this area was that if they could get even a little better offensive production they would be on their way (not unlike many around here felt about Denver's D in 2008). All a coach would have had to do was squeeze 3-5 more points out of the offense per game to relieve the pressure on the D, and Wash would have turned around pretty quick (in theory). Any competent coach could have taken over for Zorn the glorified QB coach and improved. Shanahan was in perfect position for himself, had he focused on improving the offense he would have looked like a genius again. Instead he dismantled the only part of the team people around here liked so that the small improvement in the offense was wasted. He immediately started feuding with players, disrespected a HOF QB, and played his typical roster favorites games.

When you are winning Superbowls, people will let these things slide, but he is 13 years removed from those and 6 years removed from the playoffs. He is no longer above question.

It's grammar, not grammer.

2KBack
04-27-2011, 11:58 AM
It's grammar, not grammer.

I was worried about that

jhns
04-27-2011, 12:00 PM
The Redskins should have been worse this year given that they shot themselves in the foot about ten times. I think Shanahan is a brilliant game-day headcoach, possibly the best in the league, but he produces so many self-inflicted wounds it is absurd.

That, or Shanahan knows what he is doing and you have no idea how to run a team. Considering they got better, I will go with that.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2011, 12:01 PM
I was worried about that

Yep, good thing the grammar police keeps you in check. ;)

P.S. my gramer and speling suks to.

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 12:06 PM
Yep, good thing the grammar police keeps you in check. ;)

P.S. my gramer and speling suks to.

"Dew knot trussed your spell chequer two fined awl yore miss steaks."

:~ohyah!:

2KBack
04-27-2011, 12:11 PM
"Dew knot trussed your spell chequer two fined awl yore miss steaks."

:~ohyah!:

Ah the limitations of spell check...it claims that you only spelled one word wrong in that sentence :)

BroncoBuff
04-27-2011, 12:17 PM
Whatever happens here ... wouldn't you LOVE to listen in on the Elway-Shanahan phone calls?

Maybe Wiki-leaks can get a transcript or recording.

55CrushEm
04-27-2011, 12:21 PM
Ah the limitations of spell check...it claims that you only spelled one word wrong in that sentence :)

Actually, they are all real words.....not sure which one is wrong. Must be "chequer".......the British variant of checker....but a real word.

2KBack
04-27-2011, 12:22 PM
Actually, they are all real words.....not sure which one is wrong. Must be "chequer".......the British variant of checker....but a real word.

Indeed. My computer speaks American dammit

BroncoLifer
04-27-2011, 12:28 PM
Whatever happens here ... wouldn't you LOVE to listen in on the Elway-Shanahan phone calls?

Maybe Wiki-leaks can get a transcript or recording.

I would, but don't you think the McDaniels-Belichick transcripts would be more interesting?

mhgaffney
04-27-2011, 03:01 PM
With three seconds we could move back up -- and have two first round picks this year -- and next year as well.

I say do it. But we better hit on all the picks.