Would you trade down from 15? - The Orange Mane

NFLBRONCO · 04-05-2006, 12:00 PM

Denver should consider trading down IF (Everyone finish this for me)

The reason I thought this is maybe Denver won't draft RB in round 1.
TE is too high we can get solid one in round 2
DT other then Bunkley who is worth either pick Gabe Watson
Who's to say if Denver likes either Kiwi or Hali
Would you risk 15 on Wimbley or Lawson?

DBroncos4life · 04-05-2006, 12:04 PM

No Watson please. If we are going to take any DT that doesn't play to his level it better be Tubbs, er I mean Wright. ugh wrong way.

Rohirrim · 04-05-2006, 12:20 PM

Yeah, for a third, a second and next year's first.

maven · 04-05-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFLBRONCO

Denver should consider trading down IF (Everyone finish this for me)

This pick already cost a #1, #3, and a #4 in 2007. Time to draft.

SouthStndJunkie · 04-05-2006, 12:30 PM

I prefer to stay at 15 unless we only traded down a few spots and made out like bandits (a sucker deal) in the process.

ludo21 · 04-05-2006, 12:33 PM

trade down if.... a killer deal is in place.

and for only MArio, or VD.

Requiem · 04-05-2006, 12:37 PM

We're not trading down from #15, not when we traded up to get that far. No offense, but what kind of question is it?

bronco militia · 04-05-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFLBRONCO

Denver should consider trading down IF (Everyone finish this for me)

if you're Burger Bill

Rascal · 04-05-2006, 12:38 PM

If DW2, Davis, Bunkley, Mario, and Huff are all gone then yes I'd be in favor of trading down. If one of them is available we have to jump on it.

Kaylore · 04-05-2006, 12:44 PM

This is the third thread asking this question.

Rascal · 04-05-2006, 12:44 PM

I'm really really hoping that the Eagles take Chad Jackson at 14. WR is their biggest hole IMO. But I'm betting they will take Ernie Sims or Bunkley if he didn't get picked by the Browns.

ludo21 · 04-05-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore

This is the third thread asking this question.

And there will be MORE!!!

Aint offseason great!!

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-05-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

We're not trading down from #15, not when we traded up to get that far. No offense, but what kind of question is it?

Whatever. Denver gave up nothing to move 14 spots, that's why they did it. They could move down to #21 on draft day and get more in return than they gave up in the first trade.

Requiem · 04-05-2006, 12:57 PM

It'd be pointless to trade down from a pick you traded up to. I can see us trading down from #22, a possibility, but from #15 is out of the question. Yes, we got a good deal, two mid-round picks aren't that bad but what can you do, eh?

I like the #21 reference, does Hercules like the idea of picking back-to-back?

People can dream on, but I don't buy the "we don't have a guy in mind" argument. Sure, it's a good deal and they took it, but you have to have some sort of liking or feel for a prospect when making that type of move.

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-05-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

People can dream on, but I don't buy the "we don't have a guy in mind" argument. Sure, it's a good deal and they took it, but you have to have some sort of liking or feel for a prospect when making that type of move.

and you can continue to think they traded up for a specific player. I'm sure Shanahan and Co. had their draft board 100% set 5 weeks out from the draft. Of course there's nothing that could happen in this 5 weeks period that could affect someone's draft status. Please see Exhibit 1, LenDale White. Williamson (or Klis) pointed out that they finally started doing draft meetings in earnest on Monday.

JCMElway · 04-05-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven

This pick already cost a #1, #3, and a #4 in 2007. Time to draft.

Well, it really didn't cost us a #1, 'cos we got a higher # 1 in return. All it cost us was a 3 (in a deep draft) and a 4 next year. Not too high a price at all. So if we could pick up a #1 next year along with a #2 or a couple of #3s, I'd be for it.

maven · 04-05-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCMElway

Well, it really didn't cost us a #1, 'cos we got a higher # 1 in return. All it cost us was a 3 (in a deep draft) and a 4 next year. Not too high a price at all. So if we could pick up a #1 next year along with a #2 or a couple of #3s, I'd be for it.

I agree it didn't cost much. Sliding back a few positions is not going to reap large rewards.

Requiem · 04-05-2006, 01:08 PM

It's not that I believe they traded up for a specific player, I believe they traded up because they have a feeling on where several of the prospects they like will go, and in their minds, none would be had at #29.

It was an excellent deal, but to do it just for the sake of doing it sounds like a cold-stone bluff in my opinion.

About draft status, there are a lot of issues surrounding LenDale White, and the whole part of him free-falling is just bogus in my mind. People realize the kid can ball, so I'm not going to put too much stock into what everyone and their dog are saying. White's talent is still top-fifteen, regardless of how well he didn't work out.

Could you link me to that article, if it's in the Post or RMN, I'd be interested in reading it?

I don't know. I just disagree with doing the whole, "Moving up just because it's a good deal." theory. It gave the team a lot of leverage, but I also believe that we have our eyes set on a couple of guys that wouldn't be had at #29. Sundquist said it wasn't for anyone in particular, but who knows if that's the truth.

At any case, the Broncos are in solid position, but what we were originally discussing is us trading down from #15, and I don't see that happening.

NFLBRONCO · 04-05-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

and you can continue to think they traded up for a specific player. I'm sure Shanahan and Co. had their draft board 100% set 5 weeks out from the draft. Of course there's nothing that could happen in this 5 weeks period that could affect someone's draft status. Please see Exhibit 1, LenDale White. Williamson (or Klis) pointed out that they finally started doing draft meetings in earnest on Monday.

I agree 100%

When did we trade Deltha and 24 for 17? Wasn't that a week before draft?

watermock · 04-05-2006, 01:15 PM

it was just a third party facilitator due to pronmpt awareness. Anytning could happen.

RocBronc · 04-05-2006, 05:31 PM

You would think they would have traded up with someone specific in mind but how could they do that if they didn't have their draft "board" filled out yet, which I read the other day is what they are doing now... It was a steal of a trade and I'd make it everytime even if I didn't know a thing about a particular draft year.

Lestat · 04-05-2006, 06:14 PM

Denver shouldn't trade down at all, regardless of who's there(someone of value is gonna fall hard) so we should stand pat & take BPA

either way i see it as they'll go up for Mario or VD, or they'll take Jackson unless Young or Cutler falls

Finger Roll · 04-05-2006, 07:47 PM

no no no. What do you want us to trade the first every year until 2010 and finally make the pick. I'm tired of this trading out of the first round bs. 3rd and 4th round picks are 75% trash and 2nd rounds are 50% trash so why bother.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

04-05-2006, 12:00 PM	#1
NFLBRONCO Ring of Famer Go Nuggets Go Lakers Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Lafayette Colorado Posts: 7,420	Would you trade down from 15? Denver should consider trading down IF (Everyone finish this for me) The reason I thought this is maybe Denver won't draft RB in round 1. TE is too high we can get solid one in round 2 DT other then Bunkley who is worth either pick Gabe Watson Who's to say if Denver likes either Kiwi or Hali Would you risk 15 on Wimbley or Lawson?

04-05-2006, 12:04 PM	#2
DBroncos4life Hey pic Mod!?!?! FU Why yes, that is Bacon Bacon. Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The wrong side of right. Posts: 26,877 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius "Fluff"	No Watson please. If we are going to take any DT that doesn't play to his level it better be Tubbs, er I mean Wright. ugh wrong way. Last edited by DBroncos4life; 04-05-2006 at 12:23 PM..

04-05-2006, 12:20 PM	#3
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 49,092	Yeah, for a third, a second and next year's first.

04-05-2006, 12:30 PM	#5
SouthStndJunkie Ring of Famer Shannon Says: Listen to The Junkman Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 15,349	I prefer to stay at 15 unless we only traded down a few spots and made out like bandits (a sucker deal) in the process.

04-05-2006, 12:33 PM	#6
ludo21 RIP Darrent Williams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 17,971 Adopt-a-Bronco: Paul Ernster	trade down if.... a killer deal is in place. and for only MArio, or VD.

04-05-2006, 12:37 PM	#7
Requiem ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Earth Division Posts: 19,802 Adopt-a-Bronco: Gilgamesh	We're not trading down from #15, not when we traded up to get that far. No offense, but what kind of question is it?

04-05-2006, 12:38 PM	#9
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,582 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	If DW2, Davis, Bunkley, Mario, and Huff are all gone then yes I'd be in favor of trading down. If one of them is available we have to jump on it.

04-05-2006, 12:44 PM	#10
Kaylore 6-37, Raider fans. Yummy birds and snow! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ceti Alpha V Posts: 41,305 Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke	This is the third thread asking this question.

04-05-2006, 12:57 PM	#14
Requiem ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Earth Division Posts: 19,802 Adopt-a-Bronco: Gilgamesh	It'd be pointless to trade down from a pick you traded up to. I can see us trading down from #22, a possibility, but from #15 is out of the question. Yes, we got a good deal, two mid-round picks aren't that bad but what can you do, eh? I like the #21 reference, does Hercules like the idea of picking back-to-back? People can dream on, but I don't buy the "we don't have a guy in mind" argument. Sure, it's a good deal and they took it, but you have to have some sort of liking or feel for a prospect when making that type of move.

04-05-2006, 01:08 PM	#18
Requiem ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Earth Division Posts: 19,802 Adopt-a-Bronco: Gilgamesh	It's not that I believe they traded up for a specific player, I believe they traded up because they have a feeling on where several of the prospects they like will go, and in their minds, none would be had at #29. It was an excellent deal, but to do it just for the sake of doing it sounds like a cold-stone bluff in my opinion. About draft status, there are a lot of issues surrounding LenDale White, and the whole part of him free-falling is just bogus in my mind. People realize the kid can ball, so I'm not going to put too much stock into what everyone and their dog are saying. White's talent is still top-fifteen, regardless of how well he didn't work out. Could you link me to that article, if it's in the Post or RMN, I'd be interested in reading it? I don't know. I just disagree with doing the whole, "Moving up just because it's a good deal." theory. It gave the team a lot of leverage, but I also believe that we have our eyes set on a couple of guys that wouldn't be had at #29. Sundquist said it wasn't for anyone in particular, but who knows if that's the truth. At any case, the Broncos are in solid position, but what we were originally discussing is us trading down from #15, and I don't see that happening.

04-05-2006, 01:15 PM	#20
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	it was just a third party facilitator due to pronmpt awareness. Anytning could happen.

04-05-2006, 05:31 PM	#21
RocBronc Pro Bowler Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 541	You would think they would have traded up with someone specific in mind but how could they do that if they didn't have their draft "board" filled out yet, which I read the other day is what they are doing now... It was a steal of a trade and I'd make it everytime even if I didn't know a thing about a particular draft year.

04-05-2006, 06:14 PM	#22
Lestat Oreo Lucian Rockefeller The New Age Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 5,274	Denver shouldn't trade down at all, regardless of who's there(someone of value is gonna fall hard) so we should stand pat & take BPA either way i see it as they'll go up for Mario or VD, or they'll take Jackson unless Young or Cutler falls

04-05-2006, 07:47 PM	#23
Finger Roll Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Connecticut Posts: 1,321	no no no. What do you want us to trade the first every year until 2010 and finally make the pick. I'm tired of this trading out of the first round bs. 3rd and 4th round picks are 75% trash and 2nd rounds are 50% trash so why bother.