NFLFH gives Denver, Oakland a "F" in 1st Round (link)

[timp]

I was surprised that we drafted a RB in the 1st, but I don't think we deserve an "F". I was surprised that Oakland passed on Crabtree. Oh well, this link is just one opinion from the media and we all know about opinions.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/04/26/2009-nfl-draft-grades-day-1-report-card/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl3|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fnfl.fanhouse.com%2F200 9%2F04%2F26%2F2009-nfl-draft-grades-day-1-report-card%2F

[Endzo]

Unfair, IMO.

Mayock is starting to come around. He knows we have picked High character guys, and especially, TALENT.

We will surprise come the 09 season.

[sSync]

"Does not understand assignments" may be fair for the later rounds, but anything under a C for the 1st-Round only, though, is just stupid. High rated, quality players. It was surprising, it wasn't terrible.

[iowabronco24]

An F? I wasn't the biggest fan of the first round either but this is kind of a joke. We got arguably the best RB in the draft, and a pretty solid OLB/DE project, which was a pretty big need for us. The thing I would have liked was to take Orakpo at 12, and then possibly Moreno at 18, but more likely another defensive front 7 guy, maybe even Ayers. I felt coming into this draft that we had to draft as many guys that could rush the passer/stop the run as we could. Ayers hopefully does that, but I think McD is kidding himself if he thinks 1 first round draft pick is going to solve our front 7 woes. Our offense SHOULD be top 7-8 at least though with the addition of Moreno. Not only a good runner, but a playermaker out of the backfield.

[Senses Fail]

I wouldn't give our first round a F, I would give it a solid B. As for the rest of the draft, we haven't done anything to our front 7.

[Gideon333]

An F? I wasn't the biggest fan of the first round either but this is kind of a joke. We got arguably the best RB in the draft, and a pretty solid OLB/DE project, which was a pretty big need for us. The thing I would have liked was to take Orakpo at 12, and then possibly Moreno at 18, but more likely another defensive front 7 guy, maybe even Ayers. I felt coming into this draft that we had to draft as many guys that could rush the passer/stop the run as we could. Ayers hopefully does that, but I think McD is kidding himself if he thinks 1 first round draft pick is going to solve our front 7 woes. Our offense SHOULD be top 7-8 at least though with the addition of Moreno. Not only a good runner, but a playermaker out of the backfield.

I'm so glad we passed on Orakpo - To me, while he is a physical specimen, he doesn't have instincts and made a lot of plays against weak banged-up teams like Colorado last year.

[dieselpower]

:goofy: Not the way i thought it would go but givin us an "F" is absolutely untrue. A game breaker tailback and a great defensive player. Mayock had Ayers rated as the best defensive player in the draft and 3rd overall. And i think hes a pretty savy guy and is close to if not flat out right most of the time.

Let me, lets say go alittle farther on our draft......... And first off all i can say is DAMMMMMMMMMMMMM its nice to have another good corner. Er is it 2 more corners:D/ safeties.

Quinn aint nothin wrong with that pick. You take a stud tail and guess what any extra blockers is awesome.

Bruton..please..gonna be a stud.

Extra reciever and a polished 1 at that, GREAT.

Extra depth on the o-line with possibilities of startin down the road....real savy picks.

[Cugel]

The first round was a B-. Moreno fills a need but the biggest need was for a pass-rusher and Orakpo was sitting right there!

Ayers is a project, but has tremendous potential. It just might take a few years before we see what he's capable of.

Moreno should have an immediate impact. RBs normally do. We'll see if all the hype about him being the next Adrian Peterson is justified. Personally, I doubt it. :coffee:

It's the trading our 2010 pick for a 2nd round that gives this draft an F- !!!! :mad:

[Lo-G Man]

I'd give our entire draft so far an F, and the 1st round was arguably the "best" part of a really really really bad set of decisions. Trading our 2010 first round for a 2nd round pick was moronic, plain and simple. There wasn't a reason in the world to do that. Moreno would have been there at 18, and he wasn't worth our 12. We still don't have a nose tackle. Ayers is a stretch even at 18. We didn't need a third TE. We didn't need another young WR. We traded two picks to move up to grab a QB nobody else wanted on day two. It's just pathetic at this point. Al Davis is probably mocking our picks at this point.

Does Josh McDaniels remind anyone else of Ryan the Intern from "the Office"?

[jcdavey]

grading drafts inside the first two years = retarded

these things take time to reflect on

[crash123go]

I'd give our entire draft so far an F, and the 1st round was arguably the "best" part of a really really really bad set of decisions. Trading our 2010 first round for a 2nd round pick was moronic, plain and simple. There wasn't a reason in the world to do that. Moreno would have been there at 18, and he wasn't worth our 12. We still don't have a nose tackle. Ayers is a stretch even at 18. We didn't need a third TE. We didn't need another young WR. We traded two picks to move up to grab a QB nobody else wanted on day two. It's just pathetic at this point. Al Davis is probably mocking our picks at this point.

Does Josh McDaniels remind anyone else of Ryan the Intern from "the Office"?

except for the fact that the second round pick was on first round talent we got a young ball hawk of a corner that could start next to champ and he is a punt and kick returner. the TE I also understand he is one of the best blocking TE's in the draft, graham can block good but scheffler blocks like shannon sharpe crappy.

[Grad53]

I dont really have a grade on the draft, but I wanted to say that I could watch the Atwater vs Okeye collision for hours.... We need the a safety like Atwater again!

[uli]

All I know is we traded away a guy who has proven to be successful for a bunch of... what's the word? Intangibles? Maybe they produce- but only 50% actually do. McDaniels has a Napoleon complex, just look at his wide eyes and uncertain manner. The guy is a joke. DON'T TRADE A FRANCHISE STYLE QB. EVER.

We've made a huge a huge blunder and this guy made some awful mistakes throughout the draft. Trading what for what? How many RB's did we have on the roster before spending an a** load of money on yet another RB? The air is getting thinner up here by the second. I almost can't "bear" to watch this season with Orton. Have any of you watched the guy?! Yeah, he's great... before the snap.

[dragster69]

Just because we didn't draft what everybody thought we should've drafted doesn't make our draft a failure, nor should it be the gauging factor
I think a successful draft is one where you get the most players to make an impact in their first year. In our particular situation, I can easily see Ayers, Smith, and Moreno to be in the starting line-up comes opening day at a minimum, this number can go up depending upon the performance of the rest of the draftees as they battle for a spot in the final roster
Still, we have some undrafted free agents like Rulon Davis, and Chris Baker to vie for a starting spot on the defense, plus a couple others that have potential to make the final roster...

Remember Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder. They sure seemed like a sure thing, yet their contributions to the team have not justified the money they were signed for

[Max Power]

Remember Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder. They sure seemed like a sure thing, yet their contributions to the team have not justified the money they were signed for

No they didn't, not to me at least. Jarvis Moss was widely seen as a project because of his size (or lack thereof). Crowder seemed like more of a sure thing in that he is big and can hold up against the run, and he did some good things his rookie season. I've written off Moss, but I still have hope for Crowder.

[knoxman36and2]

No they didn't, not to me at least. Jarvis Moss was widely seen as a project because of his size (or lack thereof). Crowder seemed like more of a sure thing in that he is big and can hold up against the run, and he did some good things his rookie season. I've written off Moss, but I still have hope for Crowder.

Considering Moss missed his rookie year? and once they did start playing him last year he did show "some" signs of improvement as the year went on? I can't write him off just yet. He was in on a few sacks last year and also created some QB pressure a few times. God knows none of our D-line was spectacular by any means, but overall he did make some strides.

[Hawkman]

Last year The NFLFH Grade: C-. Clady was a great and wise choice but Mike Shanahan reverted to his reachy, gambling style too quickly thereafter. The Royal pick was a real head-scratcher given everyone else on the board and I would have liked to see a defensive tackle earlier than the sixth round. Other than Clady, there's not another obvious starter in this group which is a bad sign for a team that already has a bad history of developing it's draft choices.
I dont think I would be too worried about what the NFLFH say. I give them a D-

[McLean]

I would rank our overall draft a C+. If you think about who contracts are coming up, who mmight be gone next season and who we needed this draft was OK. The 1st Round i would give a B, Im not huge on Ayers but i can see why we drafted him. The only thing i don't liek about him is the 1 year starter and bust factor. Knowshawn i like but i don't like that we passed on Orakpo.

[CanDB]

Last year The NFLFH Grade: C-. Clady was a great and wise choice but Mike Shanahan reverted to his reachy, gambling style too quickly thereafter. The Royal pick was a real head-scratcher given everyone else on the board and I would have liked to see a defensive tackle earlier than the sixth round. Other than Clady, there's not another obvious starter in this group which is a bad sign for a team that already has a bad history of developing it's draft choices.
I dont think I would be too worried about what the NFLFH say. I give them a D-

Excellent reference!

I'd give the assessment an F. These are arguably the best offensive and defensive players in the draft, and going BPA is a good long term and short term approach....because both will be immediate impact players, and could be greats for the next 10 or more years.

If the issue is an offensive player, than you have to at least give us a B or C for getting Ayers.

Ridiculous, and apparently their pattern of poor assessments.

[BroncoRyan85]

What I find hilarious is if the Broncos drafted Orakpo at 12 and then Brace/Gilbert/Moala everyone would be signing their praises. But because they drafted based on talent, and not just need, they are blasted by the talking heads. It is a joke. I do think some of the trades are suspect and not every stone was unturned during the draft. Still I can't fault the FO too much because I believe we got the best talent for the team over the long term.

[colinski]

It's not impossible to draw some preliminary conclusions at this point but the instant draft analysis being done by the myriad draftnik sites goes beyond absurd.

These sites don't have the resources to conduct thorough player evaluations so they're merely poseurs pretending to grasp a subject they're not well placed to understand.

Evaluating draft position for an entire draft is a fool's game; it's partly an intractable problem. It's like second guessing the decision of every buyer in a given market. It presumes to know more about every buyer's decision than they do, and without the massive resources that they devote to their decisions.

Draft decisions don't occur under a consistent set of criteria. There are different goals involved in different decisions, and no single grading system reflects the heterogeneity of these criteria. The creation of a single number line with A, B, C, etc., is a mathematical nicety. And whiz kids will get this point but many of you will struggle with it. This is more an apples and oranges type of situation; the best apple is a poor orange, and vice versa.

Evaluating at this point is merely a repetition of previous pre-draft opinions. Wouldn't you want to wait and ACTUALLY see what the results were before issuing a grade. There's a subtle psychological game going on here. Pre-draft opinions (which can be utterly erroneous) are immediately followed by post-draft grades (which can still be utterly erroneous) pronouncing the failure or success of the team's draft, but the problem is that the grading scale itself has never been proved to have any validity whatsoever.

There's a specific problem that occurs within this article that tells me that the author doesn't understand the draft. Specifically, there is a draft fallacy that says that 'addressing a need is the same as meeting a need.' Moreover, the pronouncement of "doesn't understand the assignment" ignores the Ayers pick and two 2nd round picks on defense. The expectation is that the only thing you have to do is 'address a need' in order to reach maximum utility, is a very poor understanding of the draft process. This was not a good year for NTs and DE34s so we weren't likely to find many of them, and drafting the the lesser talents at a too high position is akin to winning in a Keynesian Beauty Contest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest), which is actually the equivalent of losing.

We didn't want to over-pay for 3-4 talent just because they fit our system, and taking someone just because they have a defensive player tag next to their name is foolish. The Broncos braintrust (McXanders) did a very good job of eliminating our needs (in part ) through free agency and our draft strategy was guided by an 'impact' criteria (i.e., can they play or contribute?). We didn't want to be put in a situation of 'forcing' decisions because the prospective draftee played in our area of needs. It's not that needs don't play into the draft decision, but if you're drafting weak talent because a player plays in an area of need then you're merely doubling the amount of weak talent in that area.

[dogman67156]

No they didn't, not to me at least. Jarvis Moss was widely seen as a project because of his size (or lack thereof). Crowder seemed like more of a sure thing in that he is big and can hold up against the run, and he did some good things his rookie season. I've written off Moss, but I still have hope for Crowder.

Th worst part of drafting Moss is that Denver actually traded up to get him! So much for the idea that trading up is always a good idea.
I still have faint hopes for Moss as an outside linebacked too!

[broncoboy719]

Thats amazing, an F when Vic Carucci at NFL.com has us drafting the number 1 impact rookie in Ayers and number 5 in Moreno. http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d810143e3&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true
I don't put a lot of faith in the "experts" they wanted us to jump up and take sanchez. I think the only way they would have been happy is if we traded our whole draft and both of next years 1's to get sanchez, raji and jackson. i think McD and Xand did a great job with the draft. i didn't like the trades except the one for smith but they did what they felt was needed to get the players they wanted. I would give us an A for the first round and B- for the whole draft.

[McSmashie]

F stands for FANTASTIC right???

:D

[bjoli198]

well... if we would have moved up by say trading the #12 and a 3rd rounder to jacksonville, and grabbed raji, i guess the draft grade would have been a lot higher

[Gideon333]

It's not impossible to draw some preliminary conclusions at this point but the instant draft analysis being done by the myriad draftnik sites goes beyond absurd.

These sites don't have the resources to conduct thorough player evaluations so they're merely poseurs pretending to grasp a subject they're not well placed to understand.

Evaluating draft position for an entire draft is a fool's game; it's partly an intractable problem. It's like second guessing the decision of every buyer in a given market. It presumes to know more about every buyer's decision than they do, and without the massive resources that they devote to their decisions.

Draft decisions don't occur under a consistent set of criteria. There are different goals involved in different decisions, and no single grading system reflects the heterogeneity of these criteria. The creation of a single number line with A, B, C, etc., is a mathematical nicety. And whiz kids will get this point but many of you will struggle with it. This is more an apples and oranges type of situation; the best apple is a poor orange, and vice versa.

Evaluating at this point is merely a repetition of previous pre-draft opinions. Wouldn't you want to wait and ACTUALLY see what the results were before issuing a grade. There's a subtle psychological game going on here. Pre-draft opinions (which can be utterly erroneous) are immediately followed by post-draft grades (which can still be utterly erroneous) pronouncing the failure or success of the team's draft, but the problem is that the grading scale itself has never been proved to have any validity whatsoever.

There's a specific problem that occurs within this article that tells me that the author doesn't understand the draft. Specifically, there is a draft fallacy that says that 'addressing a need is the same as meeting a need.' Moreover, the pronouncement of "doesn't understand the assignment" ignores the Ayers pick and two 2nd round picks on defense. The expectation is that the only thing you have to do is 'address a need' in order to reach maximum utility, is a very poor understanding of the draft process. This was not a good year for NTs and DE34s so we weren't likely to find many of them, and drafting the the lesser talents at a too high position is akin to winning in a Keynesian Beauty Contest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest), which is actually the equivalent of losing.

We didn't want to over-pay for 3-4 talent just because they fit our system, and taking someone just because they have a defensive player tag next to their name is foolish. The Broncos braintrust (McXanders) did a very good job of eliminating our needs (in part ) through free agency and our draft strategy was guided by an 'impact' criteria (i.e., can they play or contribute?). We didn't want to be put in a situation of 'forcing' decisions because the prospective draftee played in our area of needs. It's not that needs don't play into the draft decision, but if you're drafting weak talent because a player plays in an area of need then you're merely doubling the amount of weak talent in that area.

I must say that I'm not easily impressed (Especially on this site). However, I am very impressed with your argument and reasoning. Its appreciated :salute!: