09 draft picks?

[nickademus]

So does anyone have a current count with the foxworth and the holland trades?

[SpringStein]

I'll take a shot:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7a. Falcons (could be 6a if Foxworth signs a contract with Atlanta)
7b.

Holland trade is a 2010 pick.

[mattob14]

Originally Posted by SpringStein

I'll take a shot:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7a. Falcons (could be 6a if Foxworth signs a contract with Atlanta)
7b.

Holland trade is a 2010 pick.

Looks about right to me. It just depends on what the conditions of the Atlanta deal were, and if it's one conditional pick or we have the chance to get multiple picks.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by SpringStein

I'll take a shot:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7a. Falcons (could be 6a if Foxworth signs a contract with Atlanta)
7b.

Holland trade is a 2010 pick.

That is a very weak haul. Very, very weak.

Why the **** did we settle for a 2010 pick for Holland? I'd rather have a 6th in 09 than have to wait two ****ing years for a 5th.

I'm still pissed that we got assraped in the Foxworth trade. We might end up owing the Jets a 7th too because of Robertson. I am definitely disgusted by the draft haul that we currently have for next year.

[lex]

I think we may lose a 2009 pick for Robertson too depending on how much he plays. Or is this wrong?

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by lex

I think we may lose a 2009 pick for Robertson too depending on how much he plays. Or is this wrong?

Nope...you are correct, although I think its probably a late rounder that we could lose.

Shanny needs to get at least 3 more picks. Minimum. Right now, I'm more impressed with Bob's sex life than I am with our haul of draft picks. Can't we put Colbert, Niko and some other scrubs like Nate Jackson together for a couple mid rounders or is that asking too much?

[lex]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Nope...you are correct, although I think its probably a late rounder that we could lose.

Shanny needs to get at least 3 more picks. Minimum. Right now, I'm more impressed with Bob's sex life than I am with our haul of draft picks. Can't we put Colbert, Niko and some other scrubs like Nate Jackson together for a couple mid rounders or is that asking too much?

I thought it could possibly be as high as a third. Yeah, that would be nice but if you were another team, would you give up a mid round pick for Colbert, Niko, or Jackson?

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by lex

I thought it could possibly be as high as a third. Yeah, that would be nice but if you were another team, would you give up a mid round pick for Colbert, Niko, or Jackson?

No...but if we put them all together in a package for a single mid rounder, then maybe they might. If someone gave me a single 5th for all three of those guys combined, I would take it in a heartbeat.Those guys are basically worthless. All of them. Colbert was one nice catch and a signing bonus away from being on the welfare rolls. Colbert isn't going to see the field this year unless its a huge blowout. He's fifth on the depth chart and even when we go empty backfield, he wont see the field because Scheffler will be one of the five. Niko couldn't even beat out Nate Webster. That's embarassing on its face....and there's no one more worthless than Nate Jackson. He always rapes in camp and never does **** in the season. He's perpetually injured and his single biggest achievement as a Bronco was dressing up as Santa Claus for Eddie Mac's children. If he didn't get those pictures of Shanny ****ing a goat from Patrick Hape, who got them from "Touchdown" Travis McGriff, he would be at Subway with Kircus right now making meatball sandwiches.

[lex]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

No...but if we put them all together in a package for a single mid rounder, then maybe they might. If someone gave me a single 5th for all three of those guys combined, I would take it in a heartbeat.Those guys are basically worthless. All of them. Colbert was one nice catch and a signing bonus away from being on the welfare rolls. Colbert isn't going to see the field this year unless its a huge blowout. He's fifth on the depth chart and even when we go empty backfield, he wont see the field because Scheffler will be one of the five. Niko couldn't even beat out Nate Webster. That's embarassing on its face....and there's no one more worthless than Nate Jackson. He always rapes in camp and never does **** in the season. He's perpetually injured and his single biggest achievement as a Bronco was dressing up as Santa Claus for Eddie Mac's children. If he didn't get those pictures of Shanny ****ing a goat from Patrick Hape, who got them from "Touchdown" Travis McGriff, he would be at Subway with Kircus right now making meatball sandwiches.

...I was thinking the exact same thing...word for word...really.

I just dont think we could get anything worth swapping for any combination of those guys. Teams value their draft picks too much and rightfully so. Theyd rather draft a 5th rounder who may not be able to play than get 3 guys they know cant play. Whats the value in getting three scrubs?...I mean, 3*0=0, no? That deal would have virtually no value to anyone making the trade.

I agree though that Colbert is worthless and a a waste of money. I chalk it up to the old regime when Sundquist would convince Shanahan that all these scrubs were worth drafting, one of them being Colbert.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by lex

...I was thinking the exact same thing...word for word...really.

I just dont think we could get anything worth swapping for any combination of those guys. Teams value their draft picks too much and rightfully so. Theyd rather draft a 5th rounder who may not be able to play than get 3 guys they know cant play. Whats the value in getting three scrubs?...I mean, 3*0=0, no? That deal would have virtually no value to anyone making the trade.

I agree though that Colbert is worthless and a a waste of money. I chalk it up to the old regime when Sundquist would convince Shanahan that all these scrubs were worth drafting, one of them being Colbert.

I agree that no one would probably do it...I was hoping against hope but you are basically right. 3 x 0 is in fact 0, although I don't think Sundquist tricked Shanny into Colbert, it seems like Colbert is one of those guys, like Ian was at one time, that was just one of "Shanny's kids" for the lack of a better term. There's certain guys that he gets a hard on for, for whatever reason and that becomes his boy.

[lex]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I agree that no one would probably do it...I was hoping against hope but you are basically right. 3 x 0 is in fact 0, although I don't think Sundquist tricked Shanny into Colbert, it seems like Colbert is one of those guys, like Ian was at one time, that was just one of "Shanny's kids" for the lack of a better term. There's certain guys that he gets a hard on for, for whatever reason and that becomes his boy.

I dont know how Shanahan gets exosed to these guys but Im kind of going with the assumption that Sundquist was the screening all the prospects before Shanahan would get behind them. And when you look at some of the WRs we selected, its not a surprise that when Sundquist pitched Colbert he looked good by comparison.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by lex

I dont know how Shanahan gets exosed to these guys but Im kind of going with the assumption that Sundquist was the screening all the prospects before Shanahan would get behind them. And when you look at some of the WRs we selected, its not a surprise that when Sundquist pitched Colbert he looked good by comparison.

Possibly, but I dunno. Goodman was still the director of college scouting at the time and Wabbit has said that Shanny has always relied heavily on his scouts. I don't think Sundquist is this horrible guy that was responsible for all our problems like most people like to now think because he's gone. I am actually one of the few people that believe that even our pre-06 drafts were solid (with the exception of 03 ofcourse). I like that Sundquist got Shanny into the wheeling and dealing trade mode. The only thing I really had against Sundquist was that he was way too arrogant and smug and had no respect for the fans intelligence with stupid statements like "oh we're definitely going to get a first for Trevor Pryce don't worry....and we didnt draft a safety because we didnt think anybody in the draft could beat out Fergy".

[lex]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Possibly, but I dunno. Goodman was still the director of college scouting at the time and Wabbit has said that Shanny has always relied heavily on his scouts. I don't think Sundquist is this horrible guy that was responsible for all our problems like most people like to now think because he's gone. I am actually one of the few people that believe that even our pre-06 drafts were solid (with the exception of 03 ofcourse). I like that Sundquist got Shanny into the wheeling and dealing trade mode. The only thing I really had against Sundquist was that he was way too arrogant and smug and had no respect for the fans intelligence with stupid statements like "oh we're definitely going to get a first for Trevor Pryce don't worry....and we didnt draft a safety because we didnt think anybody in the draft could beat out Fergy".

I dont know. Maybe Shanahan just found the right scout to listen to. I remember when Sundquist tried to defend such things as the Maurice Clarett pick and youre totally right on that one. Its just when you see someone shoveling **** and you look at poor drafts under their charge for a long time, its easy to consider the possibility that they may believe some of the **** theyre shoveling.

[Schism]

Could someone please explain what's wrong with that draft pick haul?

8 picks is more than enough, it's what you do with them that counts.

Also, putting Jackson, Colbert and Niko together for a couple of mid-round picks just isn't going to happen. They've little trade value, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to hang on to them and give us a bit of depth for the year coming than package them together to try and get another 7th rounder out of it, just for the sake of having another pick come draft day.

What if Webster goes down? Or Scheffler? That's where Niko and Jackson have value.

I'll not really argue that Colbert is pretty much pointless at this point, but we'll not get anything for him.

In conclusion, just relax a bit. We've more than enough picks if we use them well. Destroying our depth this year for the sake of maybe one more late round selection next year makes no sense.

[lex]

Originally Posted by Schism

Could someone please explain what's wrong with that draft pick haul?

8 picks is more than enough, it's what you do with them that counts.

Also, putting Jackson, Colbert and Niko together for a couple of mid-round picks just isn't going to happen. They've little trade value, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to hang on to them and give us a bit of depth for the year coming than package them together to try and get another 7th rounder out of it, just for the sake of having another pick come draft day.

Youre changing the terms that were being discussed. SCB mentioned trading them for a 5th not a 7th. Since our drafts have improved, having more draft picks is a better way to replace a lot of the roster filler that has been on our roster for several years.

What if Webster goes down? Or Scheffler? That's where Niko and Jackson have value.

I think it was SCB who brought up the idea that we should be playing Larsen at Mike to see what he can do. So, with that in mind, dumping Niko would obviously move Larsen closer to playing time. I agree with this and I think thats how you explain having guys like Shoate on your roster for several years before you realize you need to get rid of them once you finally see them play.

I'll not really argue that Colbert is pretty much pointless at this point, but we'll not get anything for him.

In conclusion, just relax a bit. We've more than enough picks if we use them well. Destroying our depth this year for the sake of maybe one more late round selection next year makes no sense.

It depends on what we can get out of them. Again, SCB was advocating taking a 5th for that package...but that doesnt even seem realistic. And speaking to your point, we have dumped some players and all we got out of them were 7ths. Foxworth for a 7th was a joke.

[Schism]

He actually said a "couple of mid-rounders" originally, but fair enough he did change it to just a 5th later.

As you say, that's not really realistic as they're marginal players so who is going to want to pick up all three of them? If we can only get a 7th for Foxworth I don't like the value of these guys.

Larsen is still a rookie though so I'd be wary of having him as our emergency MLB with no other solution. What if we're in the playoffs and Webster goes down and Larsen comes in and sucks? Better off having Niko there as well, more options.

Anyway, my main point of contention was the idea that 8 draft picks was a terrible haul. It's more than most teams will have. It's how you use them that matters, and we've been looking much better in recent years in this regard.

[lex]

Originally Posted by Schism

He actually said a "couple of mid-rounders" originally, but fair enough he did change it to just a 5th later.

As you say, that's not really realistic as they're marginal players so who is going to want to pick up all three of them? If we can only get a 7th for Foxworth I don't like the value of these guys.

Larsen is still a rookie though so I'd be wary of having him as our emergency MLB with no other solution. What if we're in the playoffs and Webster goes down and Larsen comes in and sucks? Better off having Niko there as well, more options.

Anyway, my main point of contention was the idea that 8 draft picks was a terrible haul. It's more than most teams will have. It's how you use them that matters, and we've been looking much better in recent years in this regard.

Obviously, 8 is better than 7 which is what most teams have but also consider that we might lose a 3rd depending on how much Robertson plays. Youre right though, it is what you do with them and when you look at what we've done with them the last three years, you feel a lot better accumulating picks to replace some of the guys from the drafts preceding the past 3. I think overall the Goodmans have been tremedous going with the assumption that they have heavily influenced the past 3 drafts. In the past three drafts we have almost half of our starters:

2006: 4(Cutler, Marshall, Kuper, Dumervil)
2007: 2(Thomas, Harris)
2008: 3(Hillis, Royal, Clady)

Plus we simultaneously have accumulated depth. Why would you not want to give the same people responsible for this hit rate more picks?

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by lex

Obviously, 8 is better than 7 which is what most teams have but also consider that we might lose a 3rd depending on how much Robertson plays. Youre right though, it is what you do with them and when you look at what we've done with them the last three years, you feel a lot better accumulating picks to replace some of the guys from the drafts preceding the past 3. I think overall the Goodmans have been tremedous going with the assumption that they have heavily influenced the past 3 drafts. In the past three drafts we have almost half of our starters:

2006: 4(Cutler, Marshall, Kuper, Dumervil)
2007: 2(Thomas, Harris)
2008: 3(Hillis, Royal, Clady)

Plus we simultaneously have accumulated depth. Why would you not want to give the same people responsible for this hit rate more picks?

I don't like this idea of giving up players for draft picks just to accumulate late round picks. Historically very few late round draft picks become players, so even if you are batting above average you are still looking at something like a 1 in 5 shot at best of having people stick around for more than a few years. The other thing is, how many teams won a super bowl because they had a ton draft picks the year after? your draft picks won't win you games, your players will.

I see the point of getting rid of players like Holland and Foxworth, they were going to be redundant anyway and if there is an offer you might as well take it. There is no reason however to peddle players who provide depth for the sake of getting that 20% of getting a guy who will be a decent backup. Fact is today if you trade a player he has to be damn good to any real value, and we can't afford to give up those players.

[Odysseus]

Where are we at with PICKS for 2009? Do we have two 5's?

Where has Wabbit been?

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by quiettiger

Where are we at with PICKS for 2009? Do we have two 5's?

Where has Wabbit been?

It seems like right now we're at...


1,2,3,4,5a,5b,6,7a,7b


But depending on what happens with Fox and Colbert it could be as good as.....

1,2,3,4a,4b,5,6a,6b,7

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

It seems like right now we're at...


1,2,3,4,5a,5b,6,7a,7b


But depending on what happens with Fox and Colbert it could be as good as.....

1,2,3,4a,4b,5,6a,6b,7

If the Broncos keep ALL of these I would be surprised. They tend to find a way to get rid of picks rather than pick them up. My hope is they trade up and get some impact starters for defense.

We need at least four new impact players on Defense. (S, MLB, CB, DE) If we are going to do any blockbuster trades (Portis for Bailey) who have we got that Jay won't mind giving up? We don't have a defensive guy to spare.

Where is Wabbit? Somebody PM me!

[lex]

Originally Posted by quiettiger

If the Broncos keep ALL of these I would be surprised. They tend to find a way to get rid of picks rather than pick them up. My hope is they trade up and get some impact starters for defense.

We need at least four new impact players on Defense. (S, MLB, CB, DE) If we are going to do any blockbuster trades (Portis for Bailey) who have we got that Jay won't mind giving up? We don't have a defensive guy to spare.

Where is Wabbit? Somebody PM me!

If we are willing to sign Peppers, we could trade Dumervil. I would throw trading Moss out there but he wont get as much. Peppers can play the run and the pass. It seems one of our problems is that both Moss and Dumervil are seen as liabilities in run defense.