Maximizing the Draft. - The Orange Mane

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 09:21 AM

I have really been thinking about how we can best use the picks that we have to be better next year. Do we take all defense? Should we get projects or 1st year starters? What is the best way for Denver to be successful in the shortest about of time?

Then I remembered watching something about the 90's Cowboys and their attitude after the Hershall Walker trade. They went into the draft figuring that they were playing with the house's money, they got players that they wouldn't have picked if they didn't have the extra picks. They were able to be aggressive.

We have 2 additional picks in the first 3 rounds this year, and I say that we do the same thing. Stir the pot. Take Defensive front 7 with "our" 1st 3 picks like everyone expects, but with the other 2 go the other way. Draft a RB or CB at 18, draft a OL or WR in the 3rd. Take a player that you love that doesn't fit the most pressing need, but is an upgrade to what you got.

I know everyone wants NT, OLB and DE with our 1st 3 picks, and that is fine. Just what I think we should do. How would you maximize this year's draft?

Where's Plummer??? · 04-14-2009, 09:24 AM

i believe a DL is the biggest thing. but after that go with a QB or RB who can sit back and learn for a few yrs. and dont make th mistake that was made w/ plummer where 1/2 way through the season when hes taking you to the playoffs bench him for the new guy.

TheDave · 04-14-2009, 09:27 AM

The Cowboys also got 7 draft picks over 3 years and 5 players... We didn't do nearly that well.

IMO... Don't over think this, pick the best player at an area of need for each selection and hope for the best.

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 09:48 AM

What if the best player on our board is not at a "NEED" area? Should we pass on talent?

tsiguy96 · 04-14-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no-pseudo-fan

What if the best player on our board is not at a "NEED" area? Should we pass on talent?

depends. no OL, WR, TE, QB, CB in first 3 rounds. when a team has as many holes on defense as this one, you dont waste picks on luxury players.

WolfpackGuy · 04-14-2009, 09:53 AM

Get as many defensive starters/rotation contributors as possible.

LonghornBronco · 04-14-2009, 10:04 AM

Pick the best player period! Any position on the team could be upgraded except maybe OT.

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

depends. no OL, WR, TE, QB, CB in first 3 rounds. when a team has as many holes on defense as this one, you dont waste picks on luxury players.

I think we are going to be surprised day 1 with at least one of the picks. I could easily see us going RB in the first or even CB in the first if a Malcolm Jenkins is still there. I almost for certain see us drafting a OG in the 3rd. We don't know how McD thinks. He is going to draft a certain way, and sense nobody knows, it could be anyone.

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornBronco

Pick the best player period! Any position on the team could be upgraded except maybe OT.

Exactly. OT is the only position I really don't expect to see any action at.

Where's Plummer??? · 04-14-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornBronco

Pick the best player period! Any position on the team could be upgraded except maybe OT.

Idk... the entire OL is pretty solid... id leave it be... but a TE would be nice... but deffinately pick up DL first, after that talent

snowspot66 · 04-14-2009, 10:12 AM

I'm fine with taking an OL if that's where the talent is at when our number comes up. You can never have enough good OL. Of course I would prefer something else but I will never again be mad if we take OL or DL.

ZONA · 04-14-2009, 10:14 AM

There is NO SUCH THING as the best player. Why so many people believe in that philosophy befuddles me. None of these players have proved anything at the PRO level and all are legitimate risks. You evaluate many players and try to rank them on your own big board but I highly doubt it's as cut and paste as many think. You do draft based on need and rank both. There is no such thing as player A must be picked because he has a higher rank over player B.

tsiguy96 · 04-14-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowspot66

I'm fine with taking an OL if that's where the talent is at when our number comes up. You can never have enough good OL. Of course I would prefer something else but I will never again be mad if we take OL or DL.

the team is not so bad that we need to take BPA regardless of position. very few if any teams draft like that. we have a good OL, good TE, good WR so we dont take them if we can fill a real position of need. tahts what the draft is for, getting players to fill holes not just collect really good players in a few positions especially if you dont need them.

snowspot66 · 04-14-2009, 10:40 AM

Put it this way. If the talent available at the spot says you go for a lineman then go for the lineman. Why reach for a CB or a safety, etc? If the lineman works out you can trade him, or the other excess talent, for far more than the pick was ever worth and get a proven guy for the other position you really need. You can't trade for a lineman. I'm not advocating reaching for linemen either but if it's a wash and you don't know who to pick or the talent isn't there for a need position I will always take the lineman. If you hit your picks with lineman you can't fail. You will be at the very least semi competitive.

Br0nc0Buster · 04-14-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no-pseudo-fan

What if the best player on our board is not at a "NEED" area? Should we pass on talent?

Well luckily for us we have needs for any position on the defense

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Br0nc0Buster

Well luckily for us we have needs for any position on the defense

I am saying for example if we have a RB as the top player on our board at 18. Do we take him? Or Malcolm Jenkins at 18?

Bronco Boy · 04-14-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZONA

There is NO SUCH THING as the best player. Why so many people believe in that philosophy befuddles me. None of these players have proved anything at the PRO level and all are legitimate risks. You evaluate many players and try to rank them on your own big board but I highly doubt it's as cut and paste as many think. You do draft based on need and rank both. There is no such thing as player A must be picked because he has a higher rank over player B.

It's the difference between the Lions taking Stafford and taking Curry.

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-14-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no-pseudo-fan

What if the best player on our board is not at a "NEED" area? Should we pass on talent?

So if the best player on the board is an offensive tackle, the Broncos should take him simply because they shouldn't pass on talent?

snowspot66 · 04-14-2009, 10:59 AM

Hamilton isn't getting any younger. Our line is solid now. Will it be solid in a year or two?

Hercules Rockefeller · 04-14-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Hamilton isn't getting any younger. Our line is solid now. Will it be solid in a year or two?

Clady could blow out his knee the first day of training camp, affecting the rest of his career, should Denver pass on a tackle because something might happen to him?

no-pseudo-fan · 04-14-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

So if the best player on the board is an offensive tackle, the Broncos should take him simply because they shouldn't pass on talent?

Do you think that the OT is going to be an upgrade?

Ok say the top of the list looks like this at #18

OT
RB
WR
CB
RB
DE

What I am saying is do we take the DE because it is our biggest need? The first round and the draft in general is such a crap shoot that I would take the player I felt best about at that spot.

snowspot66 · 04-14-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Clady could blow out his knee the first day of training camp, affecting the rest of his career, should Denver pass on a tackle because something might happen to him?

Something could happen to any of the guys on the line. Why not take a preventative measure if there isn't somebody else worthy of the selection and you can't move the pick to somebody else?

tsiguy96 · 04-14-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Something could happen to any of the guys on the line. Why not take a preventative measure if there isn't somebody else worthy of the selection and you can't move the pick to somebody else?

now you are just saying **** to try and prove your point. under no circumstance do we ignore defense in the first 2 rounds just because offensive talent is projected to be marginally better. its a team sport, you pick the players to best help the team, not best back up the people helping the team.

Where's Plummer??? · 04-14-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

now you are just saying **** to try and prove your point. under no circumstance do we ignore defense in the first 2 rounds just because offensive talent is projected to be marginally better. its a team sport, you pick the players to best help the team, not best back up the people helping the team.

lemme ask you if someone like sanchez just happens to be there when its our turn do we take him or stuill strictly D?

WolfpackGuy · 04-14-2009, 11:30 AM

They better not take Mark Sanchez.
That will make the draft an F- no matter what happens afterwards.

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

04-14-2009, 09:21 AM	#1
no-pseudo-fan True Orange & Blue Follow me... Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: EPT Posts: 2,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Hidalgo	Maximizing the Draft. I have really been thinking about how we can best use the picks that we have to be better next year. Do we take all defense? Should we get projects or 1st year starters? What is the best way for Denver to be successful in the shortest about of time? Then I remembered watching something about the 90's Cowboys and their attitude after the Hershall Walker trade. They went into the draft figuring that they were playing with the house's money, they got players that they wouldn't have picked if they didn't have the extra picks. They were able to be aggressive. We have 2 additional picks in the first 3 rounds this year, and I say that we do the same thing. Stir the pot. Take Defensive front 7 with "our" 1st 3 picks like everyone expects, but with the other 2 go the other way. Draft a RB or CB at 18, draft a OL or WR in the 3rd. Take a player that you love that doesn't fit the most pressing need, but is an upgrade to what you got. I know everyone wants NT, OLB and DE with our 1st 3 picks, and that is fine. Just what I think we should do. How would you maximize this year's draft?

04-14-2009, 09:24 AM	#2
Where's Plummer??? orton has plummers beard Orton Is A Team Leader!!! Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Co. Springs Posts: 300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Kyle Orton	i believe a DL is the biggest thing. but after that go with a QB or RB who can sit back and learn for a few yrs. and dont make th mistake that was made w/ plummer where 1/2 way through the season when hes taking you to the playoffs bench him for the new guy.

04-14-2009, 09:27 AM	#3
TheDave Sauced... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 15,120	The Cowboys also got 7 draft picks over 3 years and 5 players... We didn't do nearly that well. IMO... Don't over think this, pick the best player at an area of need for each selection and hope for the best.

04-14-2009, 09:48 AM	#4
no-pseudo-fan True Orange & Blue Follow me... Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: EPT Posts: 2,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Hidalgo	What if the best player on our board is not at a "NEED" area? Should we pass on talent?

04-14-2009, 09:53 AM	#6
WolfpackGuy Call me, "Maybe" Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Delaware Posts: 5,694	Get as many defensive starters/rotation contributors as possible.

04-14-2009, 10:04 AM	#7
LonghornBronco Ring of Famer Hook'em Horns Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Austin Posts: 1,357 Adopt-a-Bronco: Rahim Moore	Pick the best player period! Any position on the team could be upgraded except maybe OT.

04-14-2009, 10:12 AM	#11
snowspot66 Ring of Famer Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,643	I'm fine with taking an OL if that's where the talent is at when our number comes up. You can never have enough good OL. Of course I would prefer something else but I will never again be mad if we take OL or DL.

04-14-2009, 10:14 AM	#12
ZONA Ring of Famer If you smacked your screen, hahaha Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,480 Adopt-a-Bronco: Chris Harris	There is NO SUCH THING as the best player. Why so many people believe in that philosophy befuddles me. None of these players have proved anything at the PRO level and all are legitimate risks. You evaluate many players and try to rank them on your own big board but I highly doubt it's as cut and paste as many think. You do draft based on need and rank both. There is no such thing as player A must be picked because he has a higher rank over player B.

04-14-2009, 10:40 AM	#14
snowspot66 Ring of Famer Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,643	Put it this way. If the talent available at the spot says you go for a lineman then go for the lineman. Why reach for a CB or a safety, etc? If the lineman works out you can trade him, or the other excess talent, for far more than the pick was ever worth and get a proven guy for the other position you really need. You can't trade for a lineman. I'm not advocating reaching for linemen either but if it's a wash and you don't know who to pick or the talent isn't there for a need position I will always take the lineman. If you hit your picks with lineman you can't fail. You will be at the very least semi competitive.

04-14-2009, 10:59 AM	#19
snowspot66 Ring of Famer Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,643	Hamilton isn't getting any younger. Our line is solid now. Will it be solid in a year or two?

04-14-2009, 11:30 AM	#25
WolfpackGuy Call me, "Maybe" Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Delaware Posts: 5,694	They better not take Mark Sanchez. That will make the draft an F- no matter what happens afterwards.