Broncos working on trade for DT Rodgers?

[theshiverman]

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_8070699

The Broncos should pay attention to reports that Detroit will either trade or release defensive tackle Shaun Rogers. The Broncos have been enamored of Rogers. A potential stumbling block is Denver wanting to hold onto its high draft picks. Denver has dealt well with his agents, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they try to work a deal for Rogers. -- Denver Post

[crush'em]

I say hold on to the low picks. Might be a little early for trading draft picks. lets roll the dice and see if the young guys improve. dont know much about rogers and if it is worth it.

[elevation INC]

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_8070699

The Broncos should pay attention to reports that Detroit will either trade or release defensive tackle Shaun Rogers. The Broncos have been enamored of Rogers. A potential stumbling block is Denver wanting to hold onto its high draft picks. Denver has dealt well with his agents, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they try to work a deal for Rogers. -- Denver Post




the front office is stupid if they do this trade we already made mistakes on other teams problem childs see rice and adams if u are unsure!!!!!!!!!!! we dont need to waste the money again

[jvw]

the front office is stupid if they do this trade we already made mistakes on other teams problem childs see rice and adams if u are unsure!!!!!!!!!!! we dont need to waste the money again

We never traded for Rice or Adams, they were free agent pick ups. You can't blame Shanahan for picking them up either because the D-line was a mess. Sitting there were two guys with decent resumes that might have been able to help out, unfortunately it didn't work out.

Who's to say that Rogers will be a bust, I mean who here can tell the future? He is coming out of a poor organization that never wins, I bet 3/4 the team wants out. He might be a little over wait at the present time, that doesn't matter. With trainers and people pushing him to shape up he can lose the wait, it's not like people have never lost any wait before, ever watch the biggest loser? There is no doubt in my mind that he is a definite force in the middle of the defensive line. On a winning organization I think he could blossom:rockon:

[Cugel]

The only way I'd want to see the Broncos trade for Rodgers is it involved a trade for the Broncos #12 pick for Shaun Rodgers and a later round pick.

And THEN only if the Broncos concluded that it was unlikely that any player they really wanted would fall to #12, and their ability to trade back and get equivalent value was also dubious due to the low quality of the top end of this draft.

If that were the case, the Broncos might find themselves stuck at #12 taking a player WAY too early or else trading the pick and not getting equivalent value for it.

In short, if the Broncos could see themselves getting screwed with the #12 selection, then packaging it as part of a trade would be a good idea.

[elevation INC]

We never traded for Rice or Adams, they were free agent pick ups. You can't blame Shanahan for picking them up either because the D-line was a mess. Sitting there were two guys with decent resumes that might have been able to help out, unfortunately it didn't work out.

Who's to say that Rogers will be a bust, I mean who here can tell the future? He is coming out of a poor organization that never wins, I bet 3/4 the team wants out. He might be a little over wait at the present time, that doesn't matter. With trainers and people pushing him to shape up he can lose the wait, it's not like people have never lost any wait before, ever watch the biggest loser? There is no doubt in my mind that he is a definite force in the middle of the defensive line. On a winning organization I think he could blossom:rockon:




i never said they were trades or pickups i just said they were mistakes. we took a chance and they busted here. Rodgers has a poor history of being lazy and after what we just went through the last thing we need to add is a guy that has a track record for being lazy!

[Dream]

The only way I'd want to see the Broncos trade for Rodgers is it involved a trade for the Broncos #12 pick for Shaun Rodgers and a later round pick.

And THEN only if the Broncos concluded that it was unlikely that any player they really wanted would fall to #12, and their ability to trade back and get equivalent value was also dubious due to the low quality of the top end of this draft.

If that were the case, the Broncos might find themselves stuck at #12 taking a player WAY too early or else trading the pick and not getting equivalent value for it.

In short, if the Broncos could see themselves getting screwed with the #12 selection, then packaging it as part of a trade would be a good idea.

Are you actually advocating a #12 for Rogers straight up? I hope you're kidding.

[elevation INC]

We never traded for Rice or Adams, they were free agent pick ups. You can't blame Shanahan for picking them up either because the D-line was a mess. Sitting there were two guys with decent resumes that might have been able to help out, unfortunately it didn't work out.

Who's to say that Rogers will be a bust, I mean who here can tell the future? He is coming out of a poor organization that never wins, I bet 3/4 the team wants out. He might be a little over wait at the present time, that doesn't matter. With trainers and people pushing him to shape up he can lose the wait, it's not like people have never lost any wait before, ever watch the biggest loser? There is no doubt in my mind that he is a definite force in the middle of the defensive line. On a winning organization I think he could blossom:rockon:

i also dont care about his weight i care about work ethic and he is lazy, its why he is on his way out of detroit!

[elevation INC]

Are you actually advocating a #12 for Rogers straight up? I hope you're kidding.




i think he was so dream lets get rodgers huh?????:sad:

[jvw]

i never said they were trades or pickups i just said they were mistakes. we took a chance and they busted here. Rodgers has a poor history of being lazy and after what we just went through the last thing we need to add is a guy that has a track record for being lazy!

Well, it came off that way to me, no need to get in a fuss. The only reason he got lazy is because the coaching staff let him get lazy, plain and simple. You let a big man indulge himself with all the twinky's he wants what do you think is going to happen? HE CAN BE MOTIVATED, it will just take the right person.

[crush'em]

Hey Denver Got A Bunch Of So Called Bust From The Browns And Look How Much Better The Run Stop Was. So You Never Know

[elevation INC]

Well, it came off that way to me, no need to get in a fuss. The only reason he got lazy is because the coaching staff let him get lazy, plain and simple. You let a big man indulge himself with all the twinky's he wants what do you think is going to happen? HE CAN BE MOTIVATED, it will just take the right person.




I will give u this he has potential and a change of scenery could do him good but we thought the same of adams, and rice. I just think we should spend are money on surefire investments. spending money on rodgers and praying he is happy and will dominate is a very risky hope! we dont need risk we need return. and lately are risk taking in FA has failed bad>

[jvw]

I will give u this he has potential and a change of scenery could do him good but we thought the same of adams, and rice. I just think we should spend are money on surefire investments. spending money on rodgers and praying he is happy and will dominate is a very risky hope! we dont need risk we need return. and lately are risk taking in FA has failed bad>

Yes we did, but they weren't in thier 20's when we signed them;)

[broncos9697]

Are you actually advocating a #12 for Rogers straight up? I hope you're kidding.



no way all the brocos should offer is a stright up trade walker for rogers....or even just rogers for our 3rd and 7th. thats a fair deal on both sides do you all agree

[crush'em]

I Agree Lets Go For Youth Not Exactly Rebuild But Close To It DRAFT SOME TALENT

[neutessa]

Yes we did, but they weren't in thier 20's when we signed them;)

Ummm....ok, so do you realize that when Sam Adams and Simeon Rice were in their 20s, that they were not considered lazy underachievers? They were great players - the Broncos picked them up on the backside of their career.

So, I guess you're saying that since Rodgers is only in his 20s that we have some extra years to try and figure out how to get him to play? Now that's what's....:goofy:

[Schism]

Are you actually advocating a #12 for Rogers straight up? I hope you're kidding.

I took it to mean that we'd trade the #12 for Rogers and the Lions #15 pick, which would make a lot more sense.

[Dream]

I took it to mean that we'd trade the #12 for Rogers and the Lions #15 pick, which would make a lot more sense.

If that'd happen, awesome.

[BroncoBailey024]

no way all the brocos should offer is a stright up trade walker for rogers....or even just rogers for our 3rd and 7th. thats a fair deal on both sides do you all agree

Ice cubes have a better chance in hell then a Rogers for Walker trade. The Lions already have a plethora of recievers and they would be an even bigger laughing stock then they already are for drafting so many Wideouts in the first round. There would be no need to add another.

Also I would be ticked beyond all belief if we traded draft picks for Rogers because we need as many as possible to help fill out our team. O ya we don't have a 3rd round pick this year.

Sean Rogers is on the brink of release and it would be idiotic to give up anything for him because he is going to hit the market soon. End of Story.

[jvw]

Ummm....ok, so do you realize that when Sam Adams and Simeon Rice were in their 20s, that they were not considered lazy underachievers? They were great players - the Broncos picked them up on the backside of their career.

So, I guess you're saying that since Rodgers is only in his 20s that we have some extra years to try and figure out how to get him to play? Now that's what's....:goofy:

I'm saying he's young, has been to the pro bowl because of his obvious talents. The fact that we need a DT and there is sitting one who is good. He just needs a little motivation from the right person, and maybe being on a good team might not hurt. The first half of the season there was nothing but praise for Rogers and how he was one of the main reasons for the the Lions early success. IT WAS THE COACHING STAFF THAT LET HIM GET LAZY. Being the best player on defense, head coach let him do whatever he wanted. He is a good player, I don't think that's an argument. He is not going to get the big money he wants, so he won't be as expensive as everybody is thinking. That's what i'm saying:coffee:

[BroncoKazuki]

I'm saying he's young, has been to the pro bowl because of his obvious talents. The fact that we need a DT and there is sitting one who is good. He just needs a little motivation from the right person, and maybe being on a good team might not hurt. The first half of the season there was nothing but praise for Rogers and how he was one of the main reasons for the the Lions early success. IT WAS THE COACHING STAFF THAT LET HIM GET LAZY. Being the best player on defense, head coach let him do whatever he wanted. He is a good player, I don't think that's an argument. He is not going to get the big money he wants, so he won't be as expensive as everybody is thinking. That's what i'm saying:coffee:


what can you do with someone who doesnt care if you bench him. he' gets a freakin check either way.

We are just gonna grab another cancer.

Hell I RATHER trade up to get ellis then get this fool

[Peerless]

I'm sick of Denver trading it's draft picks away.

You all have seen the stats... How many guys that we drafted in the past 5 years are even on the team?


And everyone wonders why the Broncos have a terrible special teams... that's one place to start building from the draft!

Enough with trading draft picks, and signing all these average UFA.

[silkamilkamonic]

I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Rogers as long as no draft picks were involved.

[lancane]

I took it to mean that we'd trade the #12 for Rogers and the Lions #15 pick, which would make a lot more sense.

Well I have heard as I mentioned on the other Roger's thread that there is word of a possible trade Denver would trade the 12th overall pick to Detroit, in return Denver would receive the 15th overall pick, the 111th overall pick instead of a third round as would be valued and the rights to Shaun Rogers, basically it would cost Denver the value of a low 3rd Round to high 4th Round pick in value.

If that happens, cool...Denver drops a few picks in the first, picks up Rogers and a 4th round pick. If Denver trades the 12th overall pick for just the 15th overall pick and the rights to Rogers, that means we are swallowing a mid 3rd Round pick in value...150 points or so I believe. But I would rather do that then trade away an entire pick such as one of our 4th rounders we have right now.

[Mat'hir Uth Gan]

The only way I'd want to see the Broncos trade for Rodgers is it involved a trade for the Broncos #12 pick for Shaun Rodgers and a later round pick.

And THEN only if the Broncos concluded that it was unlikely that any player they really wanted would fall to #12, and their ability to trade back and get equivalent value was also dubious due to the low quality of the top end of this draft.

If that were the case, the Broncos might find themselves stuck at #12 taking a player WAY too early or else trading the pick and not getting equivalent value for it.

In short, if the Broncos could see themselves getting screwed with the #12 selection, then packaging it as part of a trade would be a good idea.


Wha???????

[berlownacyo7s]

Of course the broncos should get Rogers! Why on earth would anyone say that we shouldn't. Sure Marcus Thomas has potential but in a 4-3 like the broncos run you actually need 2 DTs. Your argument about letting the younger players develope is ridiculous because Thomas is the only person on the depth chart who isn't a ****ty veteran. Alvin McKinnley? Antwon Burton? Josh Mallard? Those guys suck. If we spent time trying to let them develope them we will be 30th against the rush every freaking year. And you're saying Rogers might not be worth it? Are you kidding me. In the 44 - 7 thrashing the DETROIT LIONS put on us, he had 2.5 sacks and a 66 yard interception return for as touchdown. Not to mention they held us, the Denver Broncos - a team famous for always having success in the ground game, to 44 rushing yards. The man is a beast.

[Schism]

Well I have heard as I mentioned on the other Roger's thread that there is word of a possible trade Denver would trade the 12th overall pick to Detroit, in return Denver would receive the 15th overall pick, the 111th overall pick instead of a third round as would be valued and the rights to Shaun Rogers, basically it would cost Denver the value of a low 3rd Round to high 4th Round pick in value.

If that happens, cool...Denver drops a few picks in the first, picks up Rogers and a 4th round pick. If Denver trades the 12th overall pick for just the 15th overall pick and the rights to Rogers, that means we are swallowing a mid 3rd Round pick in value...150 points or so I believe. But I would rather do that then trade away an entire pick such as one of our 4th rounders we have right now.


Even better if we can pick up an extra 4th as well.

We could also take a RB at #15 without it being a reach as well, which I'm sure will make you happy. ;)

I don't see how it's not a chance worth taking if this is the deal offered. I'm not sure there'll be anyone there at #12 we want that won't still be there at #15, so we're basically being given a 4th rounder to take Rogers off their hands, at the end of the day.

[neutessa]

And you're saying Rogers might not be worth it? Are you kidding me. In the 44 - 7 thrashing the DETROIT LIONS put on us, he had 2.5 sacks and a 66 yard interception return for as touchdown. Not to mention they held us, the Denver Broncos - a team famous for always having success in the ground game, to 44 rushing yards. The man is a beast.

OK - but if he did that EVERY game, they Lions would have no interest in dumping him, now would they? This is a money thing. This isn't a clash between egos. This is, plain and simple, the Lions want to dump an underachieving player. So unless you're saying you'll be satisfied with a great game or two out of 16, what differnce does it make what he did in ONE, SINGLE game?

[neutessa]

I'm saying he's young, has been to the pro bowl because of his obvious talents. The fact that we need a DT and there is sitting one who is good. He just needs a little motivation from the right person, and maybe being on a good team might not hurt. The first half of the season there was nothing but praise for Rogers and how he was one of the main reasons for the the Lions early success. IT WAS THE COACHING STAFF THAT LET HIM GET LAZY. Being the best player on defense, head coach let him do whatever he wanted. He is a good player, I don't think that's an argument. He is not going to get the big money he wants, so he won't be as expensive as everybody is thinking. That's what i'm saying:coffee:

This from ESPN...

When the Lions hired Marinelli in 2006, the assumption was that the former Tampa Bay defensive line coach, and one of the game's most gifted motivators of big men, would be the guy to prod Rogers to consistent greatness. But that hasn't been the case. And given Rogers' four-game suspension in 2006 for a violation of the steroid policy and dwindling production, Lions management might be about ready to throw in the towel.

So, just who on the Broncos staff is considered better than "one of the game's most gifted motivators of big men" that is going to be the right one to to get him to finally start playing to his full potential.....?

[Cugel]

Are you actually advocating a #12 for Rogers straight up? I hope you're kidding.

No! Where did you get that idea? I was thinking of a swap of picks, plus maybe a late round pick thrown in by the Broncos.

That would mean the Broncos move from #12 to #15, and throw in a late round pick. I don't know that would be good enough for Detroit though. #12 to #15 equals 150 points, or about a 3rd round pick. By itself that's not much and frankly I doubt Detroit would take that trade. Perhaps it could work if the teams made a 3 way trade with some other team later in the 1st round.

[stnzed]

Do not trade a high round pick for Rogers, especially if the Lions are prepared to release him.

I'd consider moving down to 16 in exchange for him and a draft pick, but they shouldn't trade anything higher than a 4th round pick......

[22cannon]

Fat and Lazy?

He did'nt look to fat and lazy to run an interception back 66yards for a TD against the Broncos this year. No one was even close to him, not bad for a 340 pounder.

talk about short term memory loss

[broncolee]

The only way the Broncos' #12 pick(1200 pts) should be involved in a trade for Rogers is if the Lions also give the Broncos their #15 pick(1050 pts). I would give Rogers a value of 150 pts which would make it a fair trade. It would be like the Lions giving the Broncos a third round pick. You could also view as the closest the Broncos can get to giving up a third round pick for Rogers since they don't actually have one. It's essentially what they would be doing(pick #88(3rd round) is valued at 150 pts, it doesn't have anything to do specifically with the Lions or Broncos but it illustrates that the 150 point difference between the #12 pick and #15 pick is equivalent to a 3rd round pick).

Rogers would be a good addition for the Broncos. It would free Marcus Thomas to work against single blocking. I wouldn't be opposed to the Broncos going after Corey Williams instead, but I don't think they could go wrong with Rogers either.

[BroncoKazuki]

Just say no to Rogers,

if he's going to be released then we can get him. But BUT

I rather get Williams over Rodgers hands down as GB may not resign him.


Yet if this would to happen our 12th is worth 1200 pts their 15th is worth 1000 points still its hard to stomach either way.

[broncos74310]

i say we get him. i remember him getting a 60 or something yard runback for a TD on us. even if he's lazy, he's better than what we got now. i wouldnt give the #12 pick tho, that's too high. the second round and some player or a lower pick would be sufficient

[Cugel]

Wha???????

Maybe I'm leaving too much out to be clear.

Right now a LB and/or DT top the Broncos wish list.

But BOTH of those positions are thin in this draft and James Laurinaitis of Ohio State and Rey Maualuga of SC just dropped out of the pool.

Meanwhile only Sedrick Ellis and Glenn Dorsey are considered elite top of the first round DTs and both will be gone by #5. Even in the unlikely event that one of them slipped somewhat, no way could either fall all the way to #12.

That leaves the Broncos looking at reaching for S. Kenny Phillips or a RB or possibly taking an OT.

Well, do they really want to use the #12 pick on an OT when they can usually find perfectly decent OL who fit their zone-blocking system in the later rounds? The last time they tried that they wound up with George Foster and THAT didn't work out too well.

I don't know whether Shanahan would reach for a RB or a WR like DeShaun Jackson at that point, but I don't see either move as providing real value for the money they'll be spending on such a high draft choice. I'm not a draft expert, but I wouldn't say that RB is really the biggest need here unless they are going to get a real stud. They've already got Young & Hall and Henry will be healthy and he's already under contract.

I'd rather see the Broncos keep the RBs they have now than take one so high in the first round. I have no idea whether Shanahan thinks like that or not.

But, suppose that he doesn't think he needs to use the #12 pick on an OT and there's no LB, S, or DT worth that spot now what?

Well he can try and trade down and take a player like Phillips or a RB later in the round.

Fine, but now you're facing a problem. You yourself have pointed out that this isn't a great year in the draft. There aren't a lot of supremely talented players who might fall into the #12 spot. So, unless some team is targeting a player at that point who might not be available later, they're not likely to make a trade.

That happens sometimes. A team might decide to move down. . . but nobody wants to pay to move up into their spot because there's nobody available there who'd make it worth the cost. So, the team is stuck with the pick and can't trade.

Then they wind up having to reach for a player or pick somebody who doesn't fit their needs and then pay a LOT more money than that player may be worth, just because of draft position.

If Shanahan concluded that he didn't want any of the players likely to be available at #12, then engineering a trade to move down some and pick up a veteran DT like Shaun Rodgers might be a decent idea. In any case it'd be a risk that Rodgers remains a disappointment.

Some busts remain busts and never pan out.

However, if you're going to lose out and have to pay millions of dollars to a player who really isn't worth the money to your organization and you can't trade otherwise, then maybe taking Rodgers off the Lions hands and trading picks could be a decent idea.

That's all I was suggesting. I'm certainly not wedded to this idea, I just threw it out there. I don't even claim it's a particularly good idea, but I think it makes some sense. That's all. :coffee:

[stnzed]

Ya know what would be sweet?

The player the Panthers really want is still there at 12......Trade down to 13 for Kris Jenkins......Then trade down to 15 for Shaun Rogers.

I'm gonna go try that on Madden08 right now.

Keepin the dream alive...:rockon:...

[neutessa]

Fat and Lazy?

He did'nt look to fat and lazy to run an interception back 66yards for a TD against the Broncos this year. No one was even close to him, not bad for a 340 pounder.

talk about short term memory loss

No one that doesn't believe we should pick this guy up has short term memory loss....we're just wise enough not to base our opininions on a single play (or game). We realize there were an awful lot more 'lazy' plays than ones like you mention.

BTW - while you are trying to convince everyone of his value based on one play, be sure not to mention the reports that since that time, he has put on another 20 pounds....it certainly won't help your 'non-lazy, not fat' argument.

[stnzed]

No one that doesn't believe we should pick this guy up has short term memory loss....we're just wise enough not to base our opininions on a single play (or game). We realize there were an awful lot more 'lazy' plays than ones like you mention.

BTW - while you are trying to convince everyone of his value based on one play, be sure not to mention the reports that since that time, he has put on another 20 pounds....it certainly won't help your 'non-lazy, not fat' argument.


Pretend your "Single play/game" argument wasn't an exaggeration, Denver traded a 3rd round pick for Marcus Thomas, who at the time hadn't made a single play in the NFL.

Why wouldn't you they take a chance on a guy that's been to the Probowl?

Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to pretend that Denver isn't desperate enough to take a chance on a player like Rogers......

[Ian]

Maybe I'm leaving too much out to be clear.

Right now a LB and/or DT top the Broncos wish list.

But BOTH of those positions are thin in this draft and James Laurinaitis of Ohio State and Rey Maualuga of SC just dropped out of the pool.

Meanwhile only Sedrick Ellis and Glenn Dorsey are considered elite top of the first round DTs and both will be gone by #5. Even in the unlikely event that one of them slipped somewhat, no way could either fall all the way to #12.

That leaves the Broncos looking at reaching for S. Kenny Phillips or a RB or possibly taking an OT.


Don't often agree with you, doesn't mean I don't respect your posts. CP to you for the well thought out post.

The Broncos will do what they always do with the pick, "Pick the best play available," it may even be a Tight End or a Corner Back. Someone we will all balk at then around week 6 call them genius over.

Once Free Agency starts, I think the draft and our choices will become a lot clearer. Like last year, when we all pretty much all knew we were taking Moss in the first round.

- Ian

[theshiverman]

There is no doubt Rogers is a very good DT when he wants to be, if the Broncos can get him without giving up too much then i wouldnt be against it.

[denver30]

There is no doubt Rogers is a very good DT when he wants to be, if the Broncos can get him without giving up too much then i wouldnt be against it.


Totally Agree!!:cheers:

[KWHIT97]

Are you all kidding, this would be a huge deal for our defense.
I would tell the Lions to take their pick of Travis Henry, Javon Walker, or Ian Gold and a swap of 2nd rd. picks, the Lions would only move up 3 spots but they would probably go for this.
New scenery might do this guy some good, even if he takes some plays off he would still be the best DT we've had in a long time, and he is still relatively young!!!
I'd much rather have this guy than waste a pick on Frank Okam!

[neutessa]

Pretend your "Single play/game" argument wasn't an exaggeration, Denver traded a 3rd round pick for Marcus Thomas, who at the time hadn't made a single play in the NFL.

Why wouldn't you they take a chance on a guy that's been to the Probowl?

Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to pretend that Denver isn't desperate enough to take a chance on a player like Rogers......

Actually, it is not me that has a "Single play/game" argument. My posts have referenced the numerous negative attributes of Rogers coming out of Detroit. Look back through this (and any other Rogers thread) - you'll see that it is the Rogers supporters that keep pointing to this single play and game....they can't come up with anything else.

The bottom line is this....no NFL team would consider releasing or trading for a day-2 draft pick a LEGITIMATE pro bowl caliber DT.

I'd much rather take my chances on someone that doesn't come with a 7 year history of underachieving. And, finally, it is moves of desperation that put the Broncos in this position in the first place. Why stay on that merry-go-round?

[Cugel]

Actually, it is not me that has a "Single play/game" argument. My posts have referenced the numerous negative attributes of Rogers coming out of Detroit. Look back through this (and any other Rogers thread) - you'll see that it is the Rogers supporters that keep pointing to this single play and game....they can't come up with anything else.

The bottom line is this....no NFL team would consider releasing or trading for a day-2 draft pick a LEGITIMATE pro bowl caliber DT.

I'd much rather take my chances on someone that doesn't come with a 7 year history of underachieving. And, finally, it is moves of desperation that put the Broncos in this position in the first place. Why stay on that merry-go-round?

Because Shanahan IS desperate, that's why! He's refused to draft a DT in the first or second round since Paul Toviesi, and we all know how THAT turned out!

He's taken endless failed CBs, RBs, WRs, OTs (Middlebrooks, Tater, Lelie & Darius Watts, George Foster) rather than a DT.

Suddenly, he finds he needs one, probably 2 good ones to be competitive for a SB. He thinks that if he does his job coaching right his team should win 10 games every single year, "and anything can happen in the playoffs."

That's his entire philosophy (see his recent interview for endless repetitions).

Well, if you think every year is a SB chance, you can't "rebuild". You need players who can start NOW, not 2 or 3 years from now.

And he's said (same interview) that there's "a big jump between 1st and 2nd year for defensive linemen, even bigger jump between 2nd and third year." So, he's counting on his 2nd year DL (Crowder, Moss & Thomas) and 3rd year (Dumervil) to really become much better this season. (It could happen).

That leaves him 1 starting DL short -- hence the interest in Shaun Rodgers.

(He also needs a safety to back up Lynch and an OLB, but he can shop for those in the 2nd or 3rd rounds of the draft - if he can get a 3rd round pick somewhere).

That's also why I don't see Denver trading up into the top 5 for someone like Ellis or Dorsey even if they could do it. The team is short of draft picks as it is. No way they want to mortgage them all for one player when they have other needs.

And yet, if they don't move up to get Dorsey or Ellis then they don't get a 1st round DT. They might not find one they like in a later round either. So, it's really a question of whether they feel comfortable starting Alvin McKinley (who is really a backup) or scrubs like Josh Mallard or Kenny Peterson.

[neutessa]

[QUOTE=Cugel;2091363]Because Shanahan IS desperate, that's why! He's refused to draft a DT in the first or second round since Paul Toviesi, and we all know how THAT turned out! ...
QUOTE]

I would agree with your post. My posts have stated why I don't want the Broncos to make the move...I've never made any claims as to whether it may or may not happen.

Shanahan and the Broncos may decide that they are desperate and bring him in...that wouldn't change my opinion that I think it would be a horrific move! In fact, I'm using past history as part of my reasoning of why I don't want this guy. He's too much like the other big name DT failures of the past.

Last off season, Shanahan said one of the reasons he went after Travis Henry vs. McGahee was because Henry didn't cost anything above a contract (i.e. no draft picks or players). I'm hoping he uses that same logic here and signs a DT from the FA market vs. trading for Rogers.

[beastlyskronk]

Detroit
Shaun Rogers
Boss Bailey
for
Denver
Ian Gold
Alvin Mckinley

Maybe throw Foxworth in there for a draft pick but I think that deal could work.

[neutessa]

Detroit
Shaun Rogers
Boss Bailey
for
Denver
Ian Gold
Alvin Mckinley

Maybe throw Foxworth in there for a draft pick but I think that deal could work.

Boss Bailey is a FA....

[beastlyskronk]

F that trade then.

[bjoli198]

I thought Lions had parted ways with rogers?

[MileHighInNY]

I wouldn't mind giving Rogers a shot as long as we don't overpay for him. Anything more than a third-round pick is too much, IMO. But he definitely has some potential, and has shown that he can be a very good DT in the NFL. Sure, he was awful for the second half of this season, but he was good during the first half, and we definitely need help at DT.

As to what another poster said about being afraid we'd be "reaching" with the #12 pick; I think if we can get Clady or Kenny Phillips at that spot, it's a great pick. If those guys aren't there, it frees us up to take the franchise RB so coveted by us fans since we traded Portis... it's very possible that Mendenhall or the kid from Oregon will still be there at #12, and both would be great fits in the Broncos' system.

[lancane]

Rogers would not be a bad addition, with McKinley, Thomas, Peterson and Harris...that is a lot of beef, especially if anyone realizes that the bend don't break defenses of our past worked well with lesser talent...in 97' our defensive tackles were Pryce, Lodish, Traylor, Perry, Ritchie and Tanuvasa...our defensive ends were Hasselbach, Jones, Smith and Williams. Sorry, but I heard the same BS when they brought back Traylor, and I can say hands down I think our defensive line now is just as talented if not more so then the 97' and 98' roster, let alone everyone forgets that we are talking that the defense started only three key returning starters and only two by seasons end...three, and you expected what? You can not change a complete roster and have just a few returning starters and hope they gel immediately, that is beyond stupidity! And of those coming onto the roster defensively none knew the system and then it changed! I want to know what in the hell some of the fans are thinking, not only did we have a whole new roster, but the scheme did not even stay the same...

They have had a whole year now, adding Rogers would be just like adding Traylor to the defense, the line does not need a whole lot more, they need one specific scheme and they needed time together, last year we were plagued with injuries, had no set scheme and a whole new roster! I am all for Rogers coming in, he can do no worse then Warren, Traylor or Lodish. If any fan wants to dispute the talent versus the 97' roster, I guarantee them that they would lose...Crockett, Harris, Atwater, Braxton to Bly, Bailey, Lynch and Abdullah is no contest...Romonowski, Mobley, Cadrez and Aldridge to Winborn, Williams, Gold and Webster, I would give the edge to the 97' team, but only cause of Romonowski, the rest are near equal...and I can honestly say if we had Rogers, that our line now is more talented overall then the one we had during both of our Super Bowl years.

Our offense is hurting much worse, we had a better offensive line, better running backs, two solid receivers and a HOF tight end who was basically nothing more then a wideout himself. We have a young gun who is real good, but does not have near the weapons that Elway did! Davis, Griffith, Sharpe, Smith and McCaffrey to Scheffler, Marshall, Henry/Young, Sapp, Stokely and an injured/disgruntled Walker? Scheffler is solid, but he is no Sharpe, Marshall is like Smith and McCaffrey combined and a hell of a receiver, Stokely could be compared to Big Mac as well and with Walker's issues we lack another solid target. Henry, Young and Hall together are nowhere near the weapon that Davis was in Denver, and Sapp is no Griffith either.

IMHO...what we need is Rogers to eliminate the need of drafting a defensive lineman early, we need to go after a top-notch running back, we need another receiving threat, a fullback - unless Henry wants the job, he may be an excellent fullback with his tangibles, we need a mean/aggressive linebacker to throw into the mix, a safety prospect for depth and to possibly learn behind Lynch, offensive line depth and talent...lastly special teams aid. The defensive line will be just fine in my opinion, we just need a bit more and Rogers could give that to us!

;)

[elevation INC]

Rogers would not be a bad addition, with McKinley, Thomas, Peterson and Harris...that is a lot of beef, especially if anyone realizes that the bend don't break defenses of our past worked well with lesser talent...in 97' our defensive tackles were Pryce, Lodish, Traylor, Perry, Ritchie and Tanuvasa...our defensive ends were Hasselbach, Jones, Smith and Williams. Sorry, but I heard the same BS when they brought back Traylor, and I can say hands down I think our defensive line now is just as talented if not more so then the 97' and 98' roster, let alone everyone forgets that we are talking that the defense started only three key returning starters and only two by seasons end...three, and you expected what? You can not change a complete roster and have just a few returning starters and hope they gel immediately, that is beyond stupidity! And of those coming onto the roster defensively none knew the system and then it changed! I want to know what in the hell some of the fans are thinking, not only did we have a whole new roster, but the scheme did not even stay the same...

They have had a whole year now, adding Rogers would be just like adding Traylor to the defense, the line does not need a whole lot more, they need one specific scheme and they needed time together, last year we were plagued with injuries, had no set scheme and a whole new roster! I am all for Rogers coming in, he can do no worse then Warren, Traylor or Lodish. If any fan wants to dispute the talent versus the 97' roster, I guarantee them that they would lose...Crockett, Harris, Atwater, Braxton to Bly, Bailey, Lynch and Abdullah is no contest...Romonowski, Mobley, Cadrez and Aldridge to Winborn, Williams, Gold and Webster, I would give the edge to the 97' team, but only cause of Romonowski, the rest are near equal...and I can honestly say if we had Rogers, that our line now is more talented overall then the one we had during both of our Super Bowl years.

Our offense is hurting much worse, we had a better offensive line, better running backs, two solid receivers and a HOF tight end who was basically nothing more then a wideout himself. We have a young gun who is real good, but does not have near the weapons that Elway did! Davis, Griffith, Sharpe, Smith and McCaffrey to Scheffler, Marshall, Henry/Young, Sapp, Stokely and an injured/disgruntled Walker? Scheffler is solid, but he is no Sharpe, Marshall is like Smith and McCaffrey combined and a hell of a receiver, Stokely could be compared to Big Mac as well and with Walker's issues we lack another solid target. Henry, Young and Hall together are nowhere near the weapon that Davis was in Denver, and Sapp is no Griffith either.

IMHO...what we need is Rogers to eliminate the need of drafting a defensive lineman early, we need to go after a top-notch running back, we need another receiving threat, a fullback - unless Henry wants the job, he may be an excellent fullback with his tangibles, we need a mean/aggressive linebacker to throw into the mix, a safety prospect for depth and to possibly learn behind Lynch, offensive line depth and talent...lastly special teams aid. The defensive line will be just fine in my opinion, we just need a bit more and Rogers could give that to us!

;)




good points but it is still a risk and i would rather spend the money on Corey williams than Shaun rodgers. However if we go for rodgers it could work out and i hope it does.......but i hope we have some damn good line coaches that can motivate someone who has been lazy his entire NFL career:eek:

[lancane]

good points but it is still a risk and i would rather spend the money on Corey williams than Shaun rodgers. However if we go for rodgers it could work out and i hope it does.......but i hope we have some damn good line coaches that can motivate someone who has been lazy his entire NFL career:eek:

I think Jacob Burney is one of the better defensive line coaches out there, his power is in his motivation, and that is one thing which could help Rogers over the hump. Rogers may not be Warren Sapp, but he has had a good career, last year he had seven sacks...not bad for being both fat and lazy, maybe we need some fat and lazy linemen then, cause he had better numbers then any of our defensive tackles. In a rotational system like Denver I think Rogers would be more then sufficient to better us, he will not be an every down tackle like he was in Detroit...remember Big Gabriel of the Packers, he was in the same boat, big and fat, very dominant...we knew how to wear him down in the 98' Super Bowl, they left his big butt in on almost every defensive down, we have never done that...and maybe that is why we have had some okay numbers by even our backups. Trust me, Rogers or Williams either of them would be just another cog in our system, and they will look good because unlike where they both play, they would rotate enough to stay fresh.

;)

[elevation INC]

I think Jacob Burney is one of the better defensive line coaches out there, his power is in his motivation, and that is one thing which could help Rogers over the hump. Rogers may not be Warren Sapp, but he has had a good career, last year he had seven sacks...not bad for being both fat and lazy, maybe we need some fat and lazy linemen then, cause he had better numbers then any of our defensive tackles. In a rotational system like Denver I think Rogers would be more then sufficient to better us, he will not be an every down tackle like he was in Detroit...remember Big Gabriel of the Packers, he was in the same boat, big and fat, very dominant...we knew how to wear him down in the 98' Super Bowl, they left his big butt in on almost every defensive down, we have never done that...and maybe that is why we have had some okay numbers by even our backups. Trust me, Rogers or Williams either of them would be just another cog in our system, and they will look good because unlike where they both play, they would rotate enough to stay fresh.

;)




i guess if our staff can turn the browncos into players well anything is possible......lol

rodgers or williams would definetly free up our choices in the draft

[The Dyna$ty]

Just think if we get a DT like rodgers we don't have to draft one with our 1st or 2nd pick right away, we can go with Curtis Lofton, Philip Wheeler or Jerod Mayo in the 2nd round.

[lancane]

Just think if we get a DT like rodgers we don't have to draft one with our 1st or 2nd pick right away, we can go with Curtis Lofton, Philip Wheeler or Jerod Meyo in the 2nd round.

Or Ali Highsmith who will be a hell of a blitzing linebacker at the next level. But I would take Wheeler over any linebacker in this years class, he is just a mean SOB and plays with attitude!

[muse]

If we do take Rogers we're going to need sort of backup, either in the form of a high-ish draft pick or maybe even another FA. That said...after the number of chodes that Shanahan has thrown money at and gotten mediocre results (or no results) out of will he do this? Dalton, Gardener, Warren, Adams...it's not a good track record. It's a difficult decision.

[Dean]

Rogers would not be a bad addition, with McKinley, Thomas, Peterson and Harris...that is a lot of beef, especially if anyone realizes that the bend don't break defenses of our past worked well with lesser talent...in 97' our defensive tackles were Pryce, Lodish, Traylor, Perry, Ritchie and Tanuvasa...our defensive ends were Hasselbach, Jones, Smith and Williams. Sorry, but I heard the same BS when they brought back Traylor, and I can say hands down I think our defensive line now is just as talented if not more so then the 97' and 98' roster, let alone everyone forgets that we are talking that the defense started only three key returning starters and only two by seasons end...three, and you expected what? You can not change a complete roster and have just a few returning starters and hope they gel immediately, that is beyond stupidity! And of those coming onto the roster defensively none knew the system and then it changed! I want to know what in the hell some of the fans are thinking, not only did we have a whole new roster, but the scheme did not even stay the same...

They have had a whole year now, adding Rogers would be just like adding Traylor to the defense, the line does not need a whole lot more, they need one specific scheme and they needed time together, last year we were plagued with injuries, had no set scheme and a whole new roster! I am all for Rogers coming in, he can do no worse then Warren, Traylor or Lodish. If any fan wants to dispute the talent versus the 97' roster, I guarantee them that they would lose...Crockett, Harris, Atwater, Braxton to Bly, Bailey, Lynch and Abdullah is no contest...Romonowski, Mobley, Cadrez and Aldridge to Winborn, Williams, Gold and Webster, I would give the edge to the 97' team, but only cause of Romonowski, the rest are near equal...and I can honestly say if we had Rogers, that our line now is more talented overall then the one we had during both of our Super Bowl years.

Our offense is hurting much worse, we had a better offensive line, better running backs, two solid receivers and a HOF tight end who was basically nothing more then a wideout himself. We have a young gun who is real good, but does not have near the weapons that Elway did! Davis, Griffith, Sharpe, Smith and McCaffrey to Scheffler, Marshall, Henry/Young, Sapp, Stokely and an injured/disgruntled Walker? Scheffler is solid, but he is no Sharpe, Marshall is like Smith and McCaffrey combined and a hell of a receiver, Stokely could be compared to Big Mac as well and with Walker's issues we lack another solid target. Henry, Young and Hall together are nowhere near the weapon that Davis was in Denver, and Sapp is no Griffith either.

IMHO...what we need is Rogers to eliminate the need of drafting a defensive lineman early, we need to go after a top-notch running back, we need another receiving threat, a fullback - unless Henry wants the job, he may be an excellent fullback with his tangibles, we need a mean/aggressive linebacker to throw into the mix, a safety prospect for depth and to possibly learn behind Lynch, offensive line depth and talent...lastly special teams aid. The defensive line will be just fine in my opinion, we just need a bit more and Rogers could give that to us!

;)

I didn't think that your comparisons between the '97 defense and this last years defense (?) were objective.

IMO time may have made some recollections of the '97 team somewhat shaded. Here are some stats; take them for what they are worth. here is a listing of points, yards, and ranking for each of those two years' defenses.

'97- pts. yielded 287 (6), tot yds 4671 (5), pass 2868 (5), rush 1803 (5)

'07- pts. yielded 409 (28), tot yds 5376 (19), pass 3094 (6), rush 2282 (30)

I don't think that you can say the personnel was equivalent when you look at this disparity of production. Not only was the Bronco's 2007 version of a defense much worse than the 1997 version it was at a historic low. IMO our defense has got to be fixed this year. Another band-aid approach won't close this gaping wound.

I would love a new offensive tackle or two. A franchise RB and a #2 receiver would be great but we can do without them. I can't see any way we can continue with the defense we put on the field last year. Fix what's broke.

[lancane]

I didn't think that your comparisons between the '97 defense and this last years defense (?) were objective.

IMO time may have made some recollections of the '97 team somewhat shaded. Here are some stats; take them for what they are worth. here is a listing of points, yards, and ranking for each of those two years' defenses.

'97- pts. yielded 287 (6), tot yds 4671 (5), pass 2868 (5), rush 1803 (5)

'07- pts. yielded 409 (28), tot yds 5376 (19), pass 3094 (6), rush 2282 (30)

I don't think that you can say the personnel was equivalent when you look at this disparity of production. Not only was the Bronco's 2007 version of a defense much worse than the 1997 version it was at a historic low. IMO our defense has got to be fixed this year. Another band-aid approach won't close this gaping wound.

I would love a new offensive tackle or two. A franchise RB and a #2 receiver would be great but we can do without them. I can't see any way we can continue with the defense we put on the field last year. Fix what's broke.

Dean, you can not compare talent by statistics, the most average coach would vouch for that. Fact is that you are talking about a team which was partially already together come 96' - Lodish, Hasselbach, Aldridge, Crockett, Braxton and Atwater were already starters...then we added Williams and Pryce, then Smith, Harris, Romonowski and Mobley. Half the damn defense had already melded into a cohesive unit, how do you compare the foulability of that statement to and with that of no time together of 07' to the 97' team with many years to one or two years to gel? Without a doubt we have more talent now overall defensively then we did then, three top drafted defensive ends in Moss, Crowder and Ekuban, not to mention Dumervil who should have been a day one pick. Thomas, Peterson, Harris and McKinley, are twice as better then Lodish, Tanuvasa and company, then you add Williams, Winborn and Webster, along with Gold, the linebacking corps. is very comparable, and without a doubt our defensive backs are better now then they were then...so besides stats, and the fact that they actually were already partly gelled as a unit and had more returning starters, tell me how it is they were more talented then the current squad?

[lancane]

I didn't think that your comparisons between the '97 defense and this last years defense (?) were objective.

IMO time may have made some recollections of the '97 team somewhat shaded. Here are some stats; take them for what they are worth. here is a listing of points, yards, and ranking for each of those two years' defenses.

'97- pts. yielded 287 (6), tot yds 4671 (5), pass 2868 (5), rush 1803 (5)

'07- pts. yielded 409 (28), tot yds 5376 (19), pass 3094 (6), rush 2282 (30)

I don't think that you can say the personnel was equivalent when you look at this disparity of production. Not only was the Bronco's 2007 version of a defense much worse than the 1997 version it was at a historic low. IMO our defense has got to be fixed this year. Another band-aid approach won't close this gaping wound.

I would love a new offensive tackle or two. A franchise RB and a #2 receiver would be great but we can do without them. I can't see any way we can continue with the defense we put on the field last year. Fix what's broke.

Dean, you can not compare talent by statistics, the most average coach would vouch for that. Fact is that you are talking about a team which was partially already together come 96' - Lodish, Hasselbach, Aldridge, Crockett, Braxton and Atwater were already starters...then we added Williams and Pryce, then Smith, Harris, Romonowski and Mobley. Half the damn defense had already melded into a cohesive unit, how do you compare the foulability of that statement to and with that of no time together of 07' to the 97' team with many years to one or two years to gel? Without a doubt we have more talent now overall defensively then we did then, three top drafted defensive ends in Moss, Crowder and Ekuban, not to mention Dumervil who should have been a day one pick. Thomas, Peterson, Harris and McKinley, are twice as better then Lodish, Tanuvasa and company, then you add Williams, Winborn and Webster, along with Gold, the linebacking corps. is very comparable, and without a doubt our defensive backs are better now then they were then...so besides stats, and the fact that they actually were already partly gelled as a unit and had more returning starters, tell me how it is they were more talented then the current squad?

[lancane]

:confused:

How in the world did that get posted twice? Hmmmm....

Anyways Dean, I will put this an easier way - this year would be like you going to a new university as the DC, you take the position, you run a whole different scheme. Then you also learn you will only have three returning seniors who have started, the rest of the squad is sophmores who are transfer students, some other quality sophmores returning, one good overall junior who you need at a new position and mainly freshmen on the squad, the only good news is that at least some of those freshmen are blue chip prospects...do you really think you can make them a top unit within one year?

;)

[stnzed]

Actually, it is not me that has a "Single play/game" argument. My posts have referenced the numerous negative attributes of Rogers coming out of Detroit. Look back through this (and any other Rogers thread) - you'll see that it is the Rogers supporters that keep pointing to this single play and game....they can't come up with anything else.

The bottom line is this....no NFL team would consider releasing or trading for a day-2 draft pick a LEGITIMATE pro bowl caliber DT.

I'd much rather take my chances on someone that doesn't come with a 7 year history of underachieving. And, finally, it is moves of desperation that put the Broncos in this position in the first place. Why stay on that merry-go-round?


They're just giving you an example of how you're wrong, do they have to go through and give ya'll a play-by-play break down of what he can do for the Broncos.

How bout Rogers snapping Jay Cutlers lower leg before he completed his 5 step drop? Also, the dude had 7 sacks in 07......For a DT!!!!!!......Unless you count Josh Mallard, who also lined up at DE, all the Broncos DT's combined didn't have that many! Marcus Thomas had ZERO!

These examples don't begin to tell you the impact he could have on the guys next to him.

And the "7 year history of underachieving" is a complete exaggeration too! The issue with Rogers is stamina, imo, not laziness and underachieving.

We get it, you don't like the idea, just save the hyperbole. If you honestly believe what you're shoveling, then I think we're done here.

If Rogers doesn't work out they can cut/restructure him before his contract gets in the 7million range, all they'd really miss is the draft pick that would most likely be wasted anyway......Unless you trade down to the 15 spot, then you're essentially wasting a draft pick you never had, while spending less money on the 1st round pick. If you just traded down (As a lot of people here advocate) with Detroit in a deal involving only draft picks, you probably won't find a player with Rogers ability with that 3rd round pick.

And finally, you stay on that merry-go-round til you're not desperate anymore......

[Cugel]

The real question to any Shaun Rodgers move is "how much would the Lions demand?"

If the price wasn't too bad, the trade is perhaps not too risky. But, the Lions are going to want a first day draft pick, and that's a big risk. Plus, Rodgers will command big money (not the huge money he'd get if he were a FA and there were no injury or motivation questions about him) but big money nonetheless.

Bowlen has just laid down the law about FAs. He thinks the Broncos have wasted too much money on under-producing or BUST FAs. He said 50% of the team's FAs have been successful, when he expects that number to be around 80%. He doesn't expect success every single time, but he doesn't like the gambling with his money.

Shanahan has now been talking about how you have to grow through the draft. We'll see if he means it. :coffee:

[Dean]

Dean, you can not compare talent by statistics, the most average coach would vouch for that. Fact is that you are talking about a team which was partially already together come 96' - Lodish, Hasselbach, Aldridge, Crockett, Braxton and Atwater were already starters...then we added Williams and Pryce, then Smith, Harris, Romonowski and Mobley. Half the damn defense had already melded into a cohesive unit, how do you compare the foulability of that statement to and with that of no time together of 07' to the 97' team with many years to one or two years to gel? Without a doubt we have more talent now overall defensively then we did then, three top drafted defensive ends in Moss, Crowder and Ekuban, not to mention Dumervil who should have been a day one pick. Thomas, Peterson, Harris and McKinley, are twice as better then Lodish, Tanuvasa and company, then you add Williams, Winborn and Webster, along with Gold, the linebacking corps. is very comparable, and without a doubt our defensive backs are better now then they were then...so besides stats, and the fact that they actually were already partly gelled as a unit and had more returning starters, tell me how it is they were more talented then the current squad?

You can compare how two teams played by their statistics and that is what I was attempting to do. We are not talking about small differences that can be explained away with the the '97 offense's ball control. These are glaring differences in production that indicate the '97 defenses produced at a rate light years ahead of the '07 defense. You say that production was because they had 'gelled'. When you give up 400+ points and 1800+ yards rushing your front seven are being abused. The offenses are just physically beating you up.

Did you notice how often the Broncos were playing a 4 defensive end front four? A 256 lb defensive tackle? Yeah right. That screams lack of talent to fill the D-tackle slots. Did you watch our D-tackles driven off the LOS play after pley. That's not scheme that is a butt whipping. Oh Ekuban was on IR so I think that it is a stretch to count him with this years D-ends and Moss missed so much no one knows how much or how little talent he has.

As for the LBs, Young Gold was a player and physically far ahead of Gold of '07 (he looked so slow and tackled poorly this last year). Bill Romanowski was head and shoulders above our perenial back up sam LB. John Mobley was much better than either of the OLBs we put on the field this year. In retrospect, D.J. might have been better than Aldridge.

As far as the secondary is concerned the '97 safeties were better but I would give Bly and Bailey the top spot at corner.

I have looked at this from several different angles and there is no way that I can see this wealth of talent you point to on this year's defense. If you are looking at what you feel their potential to be, that is a different topic all together. I see talent as what are you actually doing not what does someone think that you could do maybe next year.

I just watched a replay of the '97 Super Bowl. Our front seven this last year doesn't compare.

[Dean]

:confused:

How in the world did that get posted twice? Hmmmm....

Anyways Dean, I will put this an easier way - this year would be like you going to a new university as the DC, you take the position, you run a whole different scheme. Then you also learn you will only have three returning seniors who have started, the rest of the squad is sophmores who are transfer students, some other quality sophmores returning, one good overall junior who you need at a new position and mainly freshmen on the squad, the only good news is that at least some of those freshmen are blue chip prospects...do you really think you can make them a top unit within one year?

;)

Funny that you should mention that. It describes the defense that I had this year. Three returning starters though one was out most of his junior year with a broken ankle. We had two juniors (this year) with some playing time and the rest were newbies. There was talent there but no experience beyond JV. We went 5-3 and made the first round of the state play-offs. We were humiliated when we played the #1 and #2 teams in the state but when there is talent you can get production. . . much beyond a scoring ranking of 28 out of 32 or a rushing rank of 30.

In my 30+ years of coaching I have seen it happen before. Think back and I bet that you have too.

[Road_Apples]

I'm sick of Denver trading it's draft picks away.

You all have seen the stats... How many guys that we drafted in the past 5 years are even on the team?


And everyone wonders why the Broncos have a terrible special teams... that's one place to start building from the draft!

Enough with trading draft picks, and signing all these average UFA.

What are you talking about? Shanahan himself admitted less than a year ago we are trading our numbers of picks for quality because we are "just a few select players" away from winning the big one- not getting there, but taking home the prize.
Now how dare you second guess the best HC and Offensive Guru the NFL has ever seen? We have witnessed the transformation of our draft and watched with amazement at how much it benefitted our team this past year. We are all looking forward to see how close we are to the Lombardi next season with the same forward looking drafting strategy.

[Road_Apples]

This is just Detroit's Montezuma's Revenge equivalent for the Foster trade last year.
If Denver is willing to accept it without Pepto-Bismol, that's a chance Detroit is willing to take.

[SimonSteele]

I say get him. We can trade some of our scrubs for him if he's so bad. Give them Javon and Henry. Or as someone suggested earlier we could use him to trade down and get even more draft picks.

One thing though. Rodgers can't be worse than what we have now, but bringing him in should change none of our draft strategy. If Shanny is drafting DT early, he should still do it. Rodgers will provide a small stop gap while young guys mature.