![]() |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Would you draft Gholston in this scenario? | |||
| Yes, gotta go with talent and find a place for a potential superstar. |
|
20 | 64.52% |
| No, take someone else who fits our needs. |
|
11 | 35.48% |
| Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,315
|
Imagine a scenario where the first 11 picks are as follows:
1. Miami - Chris Long 2. St. Louis - Jake Long 3. Atlanta - Matt Ryan 4. Oakland - Glenn Dorsey 5. KC - Ryan Clady 6. NYJ - Darren McFadden 7. New England - Leodis McKelvin 8. Baltimore - Brian Brohm 9. Cincy - Sedrick Ellis 10. New Orleans - Mike Jenkins 11. Buffalo - Malcolm Kelly In this case do you take Vernon Gholston as the BPA? He currently projects as a rush end, where we've already drafted three guys in the last two years, but we could also try getting him to play upright and develop him into the biggest freak to ever play sam the world has ever known. Its a big risk, but it could also pay off huge. Would you do it? |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
#2 |
|
Bowlen Sold Us Out!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-Town
Posts: 10,253
Adopt-a-Bronco: None |
Pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
6-37, Raider fans.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 41,050
Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke |
If we switched to a 3-4 I would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Sauced...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,120
|
Assuming we could not trade back... I would consider merling, mendenhall, stewart, williams, Otah or sweed before i would consider Gholston.
Fortunately i think there will be plenty of trade offers if Gholston falls. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Bowlen Sold Us Out!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-Town
Posts: 10,253
Adopt-a-Bronco: None |
Like Ive said before, I think the players that are the greatest combination of value and impact at 12 would be T or RB. So, Id take Williams or Mendenhall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Nixonite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 33,299
Adopt-a-Bronco: D.J. Williams |
No.
I don't believe in the concept of BPA.
__________________
ITS A PLAYOFF HOCKEY NIGHT IN PITTSBURGH! |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 31,895
|
Heretic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Aurora
Posts: 5,449
|
The Broncos will be targeting several elite (as they have them ranked) players who more than likely will be gone by the time the draft falls to them at 12 (hope springs eternal in the Bronco front offices).
If one, or more of those players is/are still on the board as the Bronco selection approaches, chances are that Shanahan will stay put, but the team is already receiving very priliminary calls from several teams looking to move up...among them; Dallas. As a matter of fact, some very casual discussions took place during the Combine. The sense is that Denver is ready & willing to be a trade partner for that 12th pick...problem is; so are several teams inside the top ten, including, and particularly Miami. The effect that has is that the value diminishes considerably as you move out of the top ten UNLESS that one prized player some franchise other than your own just can't do without happens to fall to you. It could happen this year, and the general feeling is that the Broncos are hoping it will. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Nixonite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 33,299
Adopt-a-Bronco: D.J. Williams |
I think BPA creates absurd results. Even if you modified it to BPA at our position of greatest need, that would only be slightly better. I realize going purely by needs results in reaching, but there's a fourth way to work it. There has to be a sliding scale of value. We need to rank our needs and the also the level of priority for each one, because the difference between 1 and 2 might not be the same level of difference between 3 and 4, for example.
For us, the difference between 1 and 2 is not very big, IMO, both OT (1) and DT (2) are fairly close to each other in terms of priority, OT is slightly higher but its close. The difference between say 4 and 5 may be much greater. I think Safety would be 4th and WR 5th, despite being only one spot of difference, the priority is is much greater for S than WR. If we're at 42 and we have a S that is the 50th best player and WR that is the 40th best player, I'm going to go with the S, because the difference is not as great enough to overtake the difference in priority (and also because WR is much deeper in this class than S, so in a close call, we could get away with waiting till the next pick to address it). It's a balancing analysis at this point. We should compare the difference in priority against the difference in talent (and take into account the depth of the various positional classes to tip the scales if its a very close call). At 12, if Dorsey and Clady are there, I'm going to take Dorsey, not because he is the BPA, but rather because despite DT being the No. 2 need, he adds enough additional value to DT than Clady would to OT, so as to overtake the small difference in priority between the two spots.
__________________
ITS A PLAYOFF HOCKEY NIGHT IN PITTSBURGH! Last edited by SoCalBronco; 03-02-2008 at 04:27 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Nixonite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 33,299
Adopt-a-Bronco: D.J. Williams |
Quote:
![]()
__________________
ITS A PLAYOFF HOCKEY NIGHT IN PITTSBURGH! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Moderate-erator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 6,867
Adopt-a-Bronco: Oleg |
I voted yes to take Gholston, because having a rotation of Moss/Crowder and Dumerville/Gholston/Engelberger would be nice. Then we move Ekuban inside to penetrate on passing downs.
My main choice, however, would be to hope that someone was willing to trade up and take the deal. We have lots of holes to fill and getting a 2nd and a 3rd, or swapping first rounders and getting a 2nd and a 4th woulod be great. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 9,712
Adopt-a-Bronco: Elvis |
Stand him up as a LB, and he fills a huge need with freakish talent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Perennial Pro-bowler
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 876
Adopt-a-Bronco: None |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 618
|
I would jump all over 22 and 28 from dallas. Im not sure that I would take there 1st next year, because it "should" be 28 or later. Dont think they would give us there 22, 2nd and 3rd, but I would jump on that as well (rather 2 1st though).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
6-37, Raider fans.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 41,050
Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke |
I wouldn't worry too much about Miami. There are fewer and fewer teams that are enjoying the idea of paying a player 30 mil guaranteed when he hasn't gone through a practice as a pro. I love Chris Long just as much as the next guy, but even that price is too much. I suppose if there was a team who would try it, it would be Dallas.
Regardless, I'd like to see us trade back seven or eight spots and take a Chris Williams, Brandon Albert, Desean Jackson or some other such player. Build the line! Last edited by Kaylore; 03-02-2008 at 07:21 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,739
|
I'm as big of a fan of Gholston as anybody on this board and I say don't take him. He's an amazing athlete, but he doesn't fill a need. I guess that really depends on if Moss is healthy this year. Too bad we moved up for that injury prone turd. We could have had Nelson last year and Gholston this year. Oh well, here is hoping that Moss can stay healthy and be productive this year. Anybody know how his rehab is going and what his weight is up to now, I'd like him to evolve into an every down D lineman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
KKKAAAAAHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 4,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 540
|
If Gholston is available when we pick than we'll be able to get a really good deal from a team that needs a Weak side DE or a 3-4... So take advantage of it and get some extra picks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
YES A DT!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From Calgary, in Halifax for School
Posts: 7,730
Adopt-a-Bronco: watermock |
I'd bet really good money that is Gholston fell to us, we'd find a trade-down partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 2,733
|
I agree with Killer and RB....but - can you really see him getting past Cincy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 9,712
Adopt-a-Bronco: Elvis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
highly touted recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,455
Adopt-a-Bronco: Mr. Bruton |
would Gholston be able to play SAM well? how do his skills translate? I know he's a freak but I'm wondering how the stuff besides 40 times translates to LB
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
Perennial Pro-bowler
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 876
Adopt-a-Bronco: None |
Quote:
So, to answer the question, I think he'd be a good SAM in the NFL, but because of the role of the SAM in the 4-3, his talent would be wasted there. Now, if we ran a 3-4, he'd be a perfect Merriman-type OLB. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|