The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



View Poll Results: Would you trade #2 for #5 and #38
Yep 42 73.68%
Nope 15 26.32%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2011, 04:20 PM   #1
mkporter
Ring of Famer
 
mkporter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,675

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default Trading down from #2 - What would it take?

There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-26-2011, 04:26 PM   #2
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 14,012

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

380 points is a mid second round pick. We would be getting screwed.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:26 PM   #3
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,747

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

I think the Broncos would jump at this deal. But it won't happen. Mr. Bidwell is an owner that doesn't like to spend. He tends to be on the cheap side. He's let many quality FA's walk in the past and I doubt he would be willing to move up just 3 spots. There's nobody there they prefer. There is no great QB sitting there and that would be the only reason for them to move up. Whoever is going to be left there at #5, they could easily use and would no doubt be a starter next year.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:27 PM   #4
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,792

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

One of Dareus, Peterson and Miller would almost certainly still be there and we would get an extra 2nd which we could either get another player with or use to trade back into the 1st round. Seems like a win-win.

I'd think that they could get at least a 4th and a future pick in addition though.
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:28 PM   #5
Old Dude
Super Moderator
 
Old Dude's Avatar
 
Consultant

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DIA Tunnels
Posts: 15,115
Default

If the top pick was a QB, then I might very well make the deal - - reason being that one of the following four would necessarily be available at #5: Peterson, Dareus, Von Miller or Fairley. (And maybe even two of them.) Any one of these guys would be a great addition.

But I don't think it's gonna happen.
Old Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:29 PM   #6
mkporter
Ring of Famer
 
mkporter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,675

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
380 points is a mid second round pick. We would be getting screwed.
That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:30 PM   #7
Hercules Rockefeller
Ring of Famer
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 16,308

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DJ Williams
Default

Nope.

There's going to be a rookie wage scale when these guys sign their contracts, so I won't buy any cost saving claims that some may make.

I still think at times people don't grasp that this is the 2nd overall. At worst, Denver will have the #2 player on their entire board there for them to pick. The Broncos haven't been in a position like this in almost 20 years, this is a chance to draft an elite talent. You don't just give away the pick, which is what they're doing if they receive only a 2nd to move down.

I'd rather them pick their guy, then trade to #5 and take who other teams don't select out of Dareus, Peterson, and Miller (that's provided Newton goes 1st).

If Arizona is moving up for Gabbert, it means they know he won't make it to #5. That means there will be other bidders or they're trying to jump someone. That's a weak payment for them to move up.

Last edited by Hercules Rockefeller; 04-26-2011 at 04:32 PM..
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:31 PM   #8
Hercules Rockefeller
Ring of Famer
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 16,308

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DJ Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?
The trade chart is arbitrary, but that doesn't change that just a 2nd to move up 3 spots in the Top 5 is a terrible deal.
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:41 PM   #9
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,747

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Nope.

There's going to be a rookie wage scale when these guys sign their contracts, so I won't buy any cost saving claims that some may make.

I still think at times people don't grasp that this is the 2nd overall. At worst, Denver will have the #2 player on their entire board there for them to pick. The Broncos haven't been in a position like this in almost 20 years, this is a chance to draft an elite talent. You don't just give away the pick, which is what they're doing if they receive only a 2nd to move down.

I'd rather them pick their guy, then trade to #5 and take who other teams don't select out of Dareus, Peterson, and Miller (that's provided Newton goes 1st).

If Arizona is moving up for Gabbert, it means they know he won't make it to #5. That means there will be other bidders or they're trying to jump someone. That's a weak payment for them to move up.
Move up to get Gabbert? I'm going to say NOT. If there at #5 they might pull the trigger. That's a huge risk, much more so then if somebody like Miller or Peterson was there. I think those guys project much better and the risk of them not panning out is much less the Gabbert being an elite QB. I think the Cards would rather have a Miller or Peterson or Dareus and then maybe sign an Orton or somebody. I think most scouts expect about the same type of production from Gabbert as you would get with an Orton or somebody similar. These QB's in this draft are not projected to be elite in anyway. Moving up to get one near the top of the 1st doesn't seem like it would make a ton of sense. Sure maybe the dollars wont be a big deal with a new scale but the fact you would be missing out on a great player vs getting a average QB is what I'm talking about.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:42 PM   #10
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 21,600
Default

It will take more than that for Elway to jump IMO
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 04:44 PM   #11
mkporter
Ring of Famer
 
mkporter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,675

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oubronco View Post
It will take more than that for Elway to jump IMO
Maybe so, but would you do it?
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 05:11 PM   #12
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 21,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
Maybe so, but would you do it?
No
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 05:20 PM   #13
LonghornBronco
Ring of Famer
 
LonghornBronco's Avatar
 
Hook'em Horns

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,425

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Rahim Moore
Default

eehhh... No, I think if the cards make this deal it's to get Miller and it's one less defender to pick from at 5.
LonghornBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 05:36 PM   #14
HAT
I think, therefore I ham.
 
HAT's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Adam Weber
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?
Exactly......For example:

If Denver traded #2 for #5 & #38, they'd be under compensated (-380) according to the chart.

If Denver then traded #46 & #67 to say New England's #28....They'd be over paying (+35) according to the chart.

But who in their right mind would not want to go from 4 picks in the first 67 to 4 picks in the top 38?

#5, #28, #36 & #38 is FAR greater than #2, #36, #46 & #67 yet technically, Denver lost chart value in both trades.


PS.....I'd actually be all for that second trade since Chicago (29) , NYJ (30) and GB (32) could all be looking DT there.
HAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 07:28 PM   #15
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

Buffalo wanting Gabbert is the only way I'd move back without a future 1st being thrown in. I guess maybe Cincy if they give their second, 4th, and 2nd next year. But AZ and beyond you better start with your 2012 1st.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 08:25 PM   #16
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
AFC WEST CHAMPS Tough and Competent

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 38,235

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?
I like the idea of moving down 3 spots as long as they feel that the top 4 picks would be Offensive I think having #38 which is high in the 2nd round gives us ammo to move back up into the late 1st if a targeted valued player is still there or keep it to trade back even further and stock pile 3rd and 4th round picks where DL depth is traditionally aquired.

I am hoping we can move down while staying in the top 10 and grabbing 3 - 2nd round picks and getting a top D prospect and the best TE in the draft while still getting DT depth in the mid rounds.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 08:25 PM   #17
The Moops
Old School Dude
 
The Moops's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 1,113

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Should get a 2nd and a 3rd for that . . . at least
The Moops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 08:45 PM   #18
FireFly
Ring of Famer
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
The window is open!

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,788
Default

I'd like more... but if that's all we could get I'd take it.

We's still get one of the top players in the draft and would have a chance to add more talent to our roster in the 2nd
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 10:50 PM   #19
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,538

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VIRGIL GREEN!!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?
i have to say #2 for #5, #38 and next year's 1st from Arizona.

unless Arizona throws in another 2nd rounder, we are getting raped in that deal
BroncoMan4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 11:00 PM   #20
HAT
I think, therefore I ham.
 
HAT's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Adam Weber
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
i have to say #2 for #5, #38 and next year's 1st from Arizona.

unless Arizona throws in another 2nd rounder, we are getting raped in that deal
So what? Would it change your mind if having three 2nd rounders allowed Denver to trade back into the first? Take that hypothetical NE trade I laid out in post #14. NE is rumored to be shopping it & Denver would be overpaying slightly so it's plausible.

Essentially you'd be moving up.....

From 67 to 38 (29 spots)
From 46 to 36 (10 spots)
From 36 to 28 (8 spots)

Simply for moving down three spots and remaining in the top 5 overall.. Are you saying you wouldn't go for that simply because it doesn't match 'the chart'? That's crazy talk.

Anyone who voted no in this poll, feel free to chime in.

Last edited by HAT; 04-26-2011 at 11:03 PM..
HAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 11:15 PM   #21
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,784

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

In the situation that Cam goes #1 and there's a gentleman's agreement that AZ is taking a QB OR Miller, absolutely.

Buffalo will go after Dareus. Cinci has 2 great corners so should pounce on Green and we get Peterson and with the extra 2nd rounder can package to jump back into the first and assure we land Liuget, while STILL getting a Marvin Austin/Paea.
TheReverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 11:54 PM   #22
R8R H8R
Ring of Famer
 
R8R H8R's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Exiled in So. Cal.
Posts: 2,952

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Virgil Green
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAT View Post
Exactly......For example:

If Denver traded #2 for #5 & #38, they'd be under compensated (-380) according to the chart.

If Denver then traded #46 & #67 to say New England's #28....They'd be over paying (+35) according to the chart.

But who in their right mind would not want to go from 4 picks in the first 67 to 4 picks in the top 38?

#5, #28, #36 & #38 is FAR greater than #2, #36, #46 & #67 yet technically, Denver lost chart value in both trades.


PS.....I'd actually be all for that second trade since Chicago (29) , NYJ (30) and GB (32) could all be looking DT there.
I'd be all over that scenario. We might even get AZ to throw in a 5th also just to help even out the imbalance.

Assuming Cam goes to Carolina, Gabbert to AZ, Dareus or Miller to Buffalo, & Green to Cincy. That would leave Peterson or maybe Miller to Denver. I could live with this. We could use all the extra picks to really fill holes all over.
R8R H8R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:19 AM   #23
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,538

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VIRGIL GREEN!!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAT View Post
So what? Would it change your mind if having three 2nd rounders allowed Denver to trade back into the first? Take that hypothetical NE trade I laid out in post #14. NE is rumored to be shopping it & Denver would be overpaying slightly so it's plausible.

Essentially you'd be moving up.....

From 67 to 38 (29 spots)
From 46 to 36 (10 spots)
From 36 to 28 (8 spots)

Simply for moving down three spots and remaining in the top 5 overall.. Are you saying you wouldn't go for that simply because it doesn't match 'the chart'? That's crazy talk.

Anyone who voted no in this poll, feel free to chime in.
So?

are you kidding? so what if we get raped in a deal?

doesn't match the value isn't a big deal when the value is at the level of a 6th or 7th round pick, but 380 points in value is a 2nd round pick. i don't care if the team can turn around after a bad deal and make positive moves, they would literally be getting fleeced in that trade. a trade like that is near the equivalent of the rapings Shanahan used to give the Redskins

i am all for acquiring more 2nd round and 3rd round picks, but not at the risk of losing a **** ton of value.

the only way your proposed deal should happen is if we can also get at least an additional 2nd rounder in 2012 or preferably a 2012 1st as well.

sure the hypothetical of turning around and trading with NE sounds great on a website, but in reality a deal would never come that easily. not to mention, you don't think Belichick would look at the previous deal and see that Arizona completely boned us, and that he will settle for a near even trade when he sees our triumvirate will bend a whole hell of a lot on the return in trade value?

belichick is a great negotiator. if he sees that Elway, Xanders and Fox, lost 380 points worth of value to the Cardinals, there is no way in hell he accepts a fair deal with Denver, he will be looking to take advantage, and if Elway FOx and Xanders were dumb enough to lose that much value with Arizona, you can be damn near positive Belichick will get the better end of a deal on us as well.

Last edited by BroncoMan4ever; 04-27-2011 at 12:25 AM..
BroncoMan4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 01:45 AM   #24
colonelbeef
Lets be friend
 
colonelbeef's Avatar
 
Elway is the new Jerry West

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,885

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Derek Wolfe
Default

absolutely, the 2nd and 3rd are where you build your team.
colonelbeef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:24 AM   #25
The Joker
Ring of Famer
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,310

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

It all really depends on how they've graded Peterson, Miller, Dareus and Fairley.

If they have one of them graded significantly higher than the others, you take him at #2 and don't look back unless someone offers something absolutely massive to move up.

However if they feel those four aren't seperated by much then you do that move in a heartbeat and pick up one of those players and an additional early 2nd round pick. You could probably squeeze a 2012 Day 2 pick out of them too without much problem.

We have to be careful not to move down too far though. Any further than #7 would be too far IMO. If we can trade down with either of them we'll still be able to land one of the big 4 defensive prospects and stockpile some nice picks. (I'm assuming the only way San Fran moves up is for Gabbert.)
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Denver Broncos