PDA

View Full Version : Top 5 by position(what we need) on draft day



OrangeShadow
01-10-2005, 04:22 PM
by mel kiper

Tight End

1. Alex Smith, Stanford
2. Kevin Everett, Miami
3. Garrett Cross, California
4. Victor Sesay, Missouri
5. Adam Bergen, Lehigh

Defensive End

1. Dan Cody, Oklahoma
2. Erasmus James, Wisconsin
3. Matt Roth, Iowa
4. Marcus Spears, LSU
5. David Pollack, Georgia

Defensive Tackle

1. Travis Johnson, Florida State
2. Shaun Cody, USC
3. Anttaj Hawthorne, Wisconsin
4. Mike Patterson, USC
5. Ronald Fields, Mississippi State

Cornerback

1. Antrell Rolle, Miami
2. Bryant McFadden, Florida State
3. Carlos Rogers, Auburn
4. Corey Webster, LSU
5. Eric Green Virginia Tech

Punter

1. Dustin Colquitt, Tennessee
2. Cole Farder, Oklahoma State
3. Gary Cook, UNLV
4. Chris Kluwe, UCLA
5. Bryce Benekos, UTEP

EddyMac87
01-10-2005, 05:09 PM
Defensive End

1. Dan Cody, Oklahoma
2. Erasmus James, Wisconsin
3. Matt Roth, Iowa
4. Marcus Spears, LSU
5. David Pollack, Georgia

matt roth that high?

mikemustgo
01-10-2005, 05:52 PM
these guys will change at least 20 times before the draft.

as for the TE the kid from CSU is pretty damn good and is rated in the top five on alot of peoples boards atm.

Elway1983
01-10-2005, 05:58 PM
Don't need TE, don't need corner, Erasamus James won't be there. Travis Johnson won't be there. Dustin Qulquitt should be there in the 4th round. David Pollack. He is not the biggest of players but he has a great work ethic and is a good tackler. It would be great to bring in David Greene in the second or third round to join with Pollack as teammates. :duh:

ReleaseTheBeast7
01-10-2005, 08:15 PM
1. We don't need a TE, if we would want one so bad, we'd go in the free agency and get Bubba Franks...


That is my one and only point...

DENVER BRONCO56
01-10-2005, 08:16 PM
Yeah, i think we got a good young TE in Jeb.

But if we are looking for one we should go after Bubba

Lomax
01-10-2005, 08:25 PM
What about WR?

Seto
01-10-2005, 08:49 PM
what about Antonio Perkins???

This guy is the second comeing of Diangelo Hall, just more athletic, bigger, and faster.

ReleaseTheBeast7
01-10-2005, 09:11 PM
What about WR?

Rod, Ashley, Darius, plus FA...


WE NEED DLINE DAMNIT!

Lomax
01-10-2005, 09:14 PM
Rod, Ashley, Darius, plus FA...


WE NEED DLINE DAMNIT!Agreed. But Rod, Ashley, Darius...didn't get it done this year. Why would you assume that they will get it done next year?

3rd down % and redzone efficiency says it all. We need a POSSESSION receiver. Dare I say MORE than a D Line?

Warhorse
01-10-2005, 09:15 PM
As a non fan, I would suggest speed and disruption off the end. Good pressure off the corner can make average corners quite good.

RunByDesign
01-10-2005, 09:19 PM
by mel kiper

Tight End

1. Alex Smith, Stanford
2. Kevin Everett, Miami
3. Garrett Cross, California
4. Victor Sesay, Missouri
5. Adam Bergen, Lehigh

Defensive End

1. Dan Cody, Oklahoma
2. Erasmus James, Wisconsin
3. Matt Roth, Iowa
4. Marcus Spears, LSU
5. David Pollack, Georgia

Defensive Tackle

1. Travis Johnson, Florida State
2. Shaun Cody, USC
3. Anttaj Hawthorne, Wisconsin
4. Mike Patterson, USC
5. Ronald Fields, Mississippi State

Cornerback

1. Antrell Rolle, Miami
2. Bryant McFadden, Florida State
3. Carlos Rogers, Auburn
4. Corey Webster, LSU
5. Eric Green Virginia Tech

Punter

1. Dustin Colquitt, Tennessee
2. Cole Farder, Oklahoma State
3. Gary Cook, UNLV
4. Chris Kluwe, UCLA
5. Bryce Benekos, UTEP

A few observations and opines:

We don't need a TE, Jeb is going to be the man.

While DE and DT are needs, there are guys that are available in FA that could make immediate impacts, if we could land them. I don't see any of those rookies making the same kind of impact, however, I do agree we do need to draft in that area.

The only CB worth taking out of those five, (Rolle,) will be gone by the time our pick comes around. Our secondary, (should it stay healthy, next year,) should be formidable. I actually think that we need to draft some speed at safety.

We are never going to draft a punter. ;)

ReleaseTheBeast7
01-10-2005, 09:26 PM
Agreed. But Rod, Ashley, Darius...didn't get it done this year. Why would you assume that they will get it done next year?

3rd down % and redzone efficiency says it all. We need a POSSESSION receiver. Dare I say MORE than a D Line?

There are plenty of FA WRs this offseason, no reason to waste a pick on one.

RCardoza278430
01-10-2005, 09:48 PM
My thoughts on our needs for 2005:

1) DT
2) DE (pass rushing specialist)
3) RG
4) LG
5) Punter

I think we need to go after a strong free agent DT or DE (best available). Is Jason Taylor a free agent? I know John Abraham is available. Use our #1 pick on the other.

GIVEME6
01-10-2005, 09:51 PM
I feel we should go with defensive lineman in the first two rounds. Face the facts: Our D-line is made up of old veterans that are past their prime, and cast-aways from other teams that don't produce. We need some DTs that can take up two blockers and free up Pryce and Hayward, and get some pressure on the QB. Our DBs would be 10x better than they are(except for Roc!) if we just didn't expect them to cover their men for an hour while the QB eats a sandwich back in the pocket and decides what WR to throw to.

I THINK we got our 3rd round pick taken away, so we definitely need to make a trade with a team to get another 2nd round pick or acquire a 3rd rounder. There will be some great value left in the third round, that could turn into a decent WR-LB-TE. I'd like to see us take another LB since Spragan is SLOW as hell and can't cover TEs, but our D line is PRIORITY #1!!

Broncoballa2684
01-10-2005, 09:55 PM
Don't need TE, don't need corner, Erasamus James won't be there. Travis Johnson won't be there. Dustin Qulquitt should be there in the 4th round. David Pollack. He is not the biggest of players but he has a great work ethic and is a good tackler. It would be great to bring in David Greene in the second or third round to join with Pollack as teammates. :duh:


i dont know.......i think were gonna trade down.......were gonna have to, we did last yr......

Lomax
01-10-2005, 11:01 PM
There are plenty of FA WRs this offseason, no reason to waste a pick on one.The point of "wasting a pick" has nothing to do with whether there are FA WRs. There are FA D Linemen too, so why should we draft a DT/DE? The point is, free agency is good for getting decent, aged players at a premium (once the bidding war begins), or getting players that nobody wants, to fill out your depth chart. Obviously I assume you're talking about the former, which means we're gonna eat up cap room while only temporarily addressing a long-term issue.

The point of drafting a WR is to get a guy who isn't past his prime playing for some other team who can contribute as a starter for the next 10 years or so, and not having to pay him more than he's worth to do so. Especially if we can get a guy who can make an immediate impact for our possession game AND take Rod or Ashley's place if the unthinkable happens.

That said, we need both, but the idea that we don't need to draft because there are free agents out there is silly.

Road_Apples
01-10-2005, 11:11 PM
O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line!

Lomax
01-10-2005, 11:33 PM
O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line! O'Line!I gotta wonder about this. We had yet another great rushing season lead by another unknown RB, and allow fewer sacks than 95% of the league, yet we need changes on the O Line? When will you be happy, when we allow NO sacks? I'd say part of the reason we're competitive every year, despite all of the injuries and retirements is BECAUSE of our O Line.

rcsodak
01-10-2005, 11:37 PM
Yes, BUT, our redzone and 3rd down efficiency ratings are dreadful.
With players getting bigger, stronger and faster, you need like-sized guys on the O line to make the playing field even....

How much longer do you think the 'zone blocking' incorporated by our O line is going to be allowed? I say NOT LONG...meaning we'll be blocking bigger guys STRAIGHT UP. And that means our running game will go to pot, along with our qb's backside.....

broncosfan247
01-10-2005, 11:43 PM
We could snag a wide receiver and a defensive tackle from free agency. If Pryce's injury continues to nag him and he does descide to hang it up then I would change around the tackle with the end (free agent defensive end, draft tackle). Anyways. 1) Defensive End, 2) Guard, 3) Defensive Tackle , 4) Tight End, 5) Punter lol

RunByDesign
01-10-2005, 11:46 PM
I gotta wonder about this. We had yet another great rushing season lead by another unknown RB, and allow fewer sacks than 95% of the league, yet we need changes on the O Line? When will you be happy, when we allow NO sacks? I'd say part of the reason we're competitive every year, despite all of the injuries and retirements is BECAUSE of our O Line.

Well, I think that a QB's completion % and his INT % are directly related to how the O line is performing. Jake does a good job (or sometimes, not so good, 20 INT's) of getting rid of the ball, when being pressured. Low sacks and a quick delivery are often times a direct correlation of a QB with a quick relase. Marino hardly ever got sacked, yet I wouldn't call any of his O lines great. We run up yards because of our scheme. This is true when speaking about RB's and O lineman.

NJBRONCOSFAN
01-11-2005, 07:12 AM
what about Antonio Perkins???

This guy is the second comeing of Diangelo Hall, just more athletic, bigger, and faster.
Just checked some mock drafts, looks like he'll go somewhere in the third round. Most boards don't even have him in the top ten at his position, so I assume your enthusiasm is due to some oklahoma sooner sunglasses. Dangelo Hall was a top 15 pick if i remember...not really sure how you can make the comparison.

NJBRONCOSFAN
01-11-2005, 07:15 AM
1. We don't need a TE, if we would want one so bad, we'd go in the free agency and get Bubba Franks...


That is my one and only point...
We don't need a TE?
I forgot, Jeb was huge with those 30 something receptions...just HUGE.
Bubba Franks?!?!?! Come on!
Bubba Franks had less than 400 yards this season! And that's in an offense who's QB had over 4k yards passing.

Heath Miller, he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can!!!

As RC mentioned, our red zone offense was absolutely horrible...a playmaking TE could go along way in changing that.

Lomax
01-11-2005, 01:33 PM
Yes, BUT, our redzone and 3rd down efficiency ratings are dreadful.
With players getting bigger, stronger and faster, you need like-sized guys on the O line to make the playing field even....

How much longer do you think the 'zone blocking' incorporated by our O line is going to be allowed? I say NOT LONG...meaning we'll be blocking bigger guys STRAIGHT UP. And that means our running game will go to pot, along with our qb's backside.....I think our redzone and 3rd down efficiency is easily more attributable to the lack of a 3rd down passing target. No Sharpe, no McCaffrey, no red zone scoring. Sure, having a huge line helps on 3rd and inches, but it seems clear to me that there are many more instances where we can't sustain a drive because of a lack of short yardage passing targets on 3rd and 3 to 3rd and 7, which is precisely the same reason we don't convert in the redzone. When you just look at fantasy stats, TE catches go way up in the redzone, as do receptions for BIG receivers. Without skill at those positions, redzone efficiency will be limited, no matter how big your O line is.

Tatortot
01-11-2005, 03:00 PM
Roth would be a major asset. He is an excellent asset and never gave oppenents time to find people to throw the ball to. I watched almost every game and he is dominate. Strong and very quick. He could be like Dwight Freeney.

Bronco D
01-11-2005, 03:29 PM
I believe the team needs some key pieces to the puzzle, either thru the draft or free agency.
DEF. TACKLE
def. tackle
possession wide reciever ( Smith getting closer to retirement )
Punter

ps let kennoy kennedy go, and use that money elsewhere. ( free agent)

Road_Apples
01-11-2005, 05:22 PM
I think our redzone and 3rd down efficiency is easily more attributable to the lack of a 3rd down passing target. No Sharpe, no McCaffrey, no red zone scoring. Sure, having a huge line helps on 3rd and inches, but it seems clear to me that there are many more instances where we can't sustain a drive because of a lack of short yardage passing targets on 3rd and 3 to 3rd and 7, which is precisely the same reason we don't convert in the redzone.

What about the 3rd and 3 to 3rd and inches?

This is the reason why we cannot sustain drives making it much harder on our D.
Not to mention that we have a crappy punter- it makes it all the more important to have the Offense rolling along. What would be easierr is if we had that killer O line we would be in a 3rd and 3 or less most times as opposed to 3rd and 3+. With the D creeping up to defend against the run which we can get the first down on, the short yardage passing play opens up that much more.

Seto
01-11-2005, 05:32 PM
Just checked some mock drafts, looks like he'll go somewhere in the third round. Most boards don't even have him in the top ten at his position, so I assume your enthusiasm is due to some oklahoma sooner sunglasses. Dangelo Hall was a top 15 pick if i remember...not really sure how you can make the comparison.


Antonio Perkins is faster than anyone I have ever seen, this guy is incredible, he has a 4.31 40 time and a 42 inch vetical leap (both better than Deangelo Hall) he is 6,0 (Hall was only 5,9/5,10)

It doesn't matter where people think he is going to be drafted, I doubt he will be drafted high, but this guy is an incredible athlete, and an even better CB (not to mention the NCAA record for most Punt Returns for a TD in a game, in a season, and in a career)

People are stupid for not putting him higher, jsut plain stupid

Lomax
01-11-2005, 05:47 PM
What about the 3rd and 3 to 3rd and inches?

This is the reason why we cannot sustain drives making it much harder on our D.
Not to mention that we have a crappy punter- it makes it all the more important to have the Offense rolling along. What would be easierr is if we had that killer O line we would be in a 3rd and 3 or less most times as opposed to 3rd and 3+. With the D creeping up to defend against the run which we can get the first down on, the short yardage passing play opens up that much more.Right, but it's much easier to get a possession receiver than it is to engineer a new O line. I'm saying, as soon as next year, our conversion % can jump well over 40 with a single piece being added. Our running game will be stronger with an extra big body on run blocking. Our redzone TD percentage will go up with an added target in that part of the field. It would literally affect every aspect of our game. Restructuring the O line to build around massive guys not only changes the way we play offense, but requires a lot of trial and error and won't likely see any effect for years. And a bigger OL is only really a factor in short yardage situations, while eliminating our mobile pocket and our superior ability to pull linemen to make downfield blocks on screens, sweeps, etc.

56crash
01-11-2005, 07:20 PM
Agreed. But Rod, Ashley, Darius...didn't get it done this year. Why would you assume that they will get it done next year?

3rd down % and redzone efficiency says it all. We need a POSSESSION receiver. Dare I say MORE than a D Line?

that is why we should go after Matt Jones 6'7'' he was a QB and we should make him a WR he runs 4.3 40 and one hell of a player he would be a TD bonaza in the redzone :cheers:

NJBRONCOSFAN
01-12-2005, 06:51 AM
Antonio Perkins is faster than anyone I have ever seen, this guy is incredible, he has a 4.31 40 time and a 42 inch vetical leap (both better than Deangelo Hall) he is 6,0 (Hall was only 5,9/5,10)

It doesn't matter where people think he is going to be drafted, I doubt he will be drafted high, but this guy is an incredible athlete, and an even better CB (not to mention the NCAA record for most Punt Returns for a TD in a game, in a season, and in a career)

People are stupid for not putting him higher, jsut plain stupid
Nah, that whole oklahoma defense is a tad overrated...he might be able to return punts, but he's not a very good corner, not even for nickel packages.

Road_Apples
01-28-2005, 09:49 AM
Right, but it's much easier to get a possession receiver than it is to engineer a new O line. I'm saying, as soon as next year, our conversion % can jump well over 40 with a single piece being added. Our running game will be stronger with an extra big body on run blocking. Our redzone TD percentage will go up with an added target in that part of the field. It would literally affect every aspect of our game. Restructuring the O line to build around massive guys not only changes the way we play offense, but requires a lot of trial and error and won't likely see any effect for years. And a bigger OL is only really a factor in short yardage situations, while eliminating our mobile pocket and our superior ability to pull linemen to make downfield blocks on screens, sweeps, etc.

you mentioned the benefit: "And a bigger OL is only really a factor in short yardage situations" but who is to say that just because you place large linemen in there they can't "pull linemen to make downfield blocks on screens, sweeps"?
Foster didn't do too badly at all, and it gives us that much more confidence - as you mentioned in short yardage, which will open up the TE/WR we have already (which I think are adequate enough). Our TE/WR are reasonably good at run blocking but admittedly could be better.

I don't have a problem with changing the way we play Offense and yes it will take a couple of years for them to gel, but in the end we will be far better off. Presently we are getting blown off the line a lot esp up the middle. WHatever it takes to give Jake more time to process the information (cuz he just can't process that fast it seems) and far better hole opening for ther run would be the biggest benefit to the Offense.

GIVEME6
01-28-2005, 10:12 AM
what about Antonio Perkins???

This guy is the second comeing of Diangelo Hall, just more athletic, bigger, and faster.

Yep. Perkins is a PLAYMAKER and I can see him making the transition to the NFL very easily. Probably the most polished of all the corners in the draft.

JRWIZ
01-28-2005, 11:25 AM
Agreed. But Rod, Ashley, Darius...didn't get it done this year. Why would you assume that they will get it done next year?

3rd down % and redzone efficiency says it all. We need a POSSESSION receiver. Dare I say MORE than a D Line?

Just where did Jake get 4373 yards this year? The WR accounted for a really big chunk of that 2747 yards 63%

You are completely wrong about what we need worst. the D-line cost us games, no pressure means no sacks, or picks, and lots of completed passes.

We dropped a bunch of passes last year mainly from assshley watts and putz. tater dropped a couple of sure TD's

But we scored enough points in all but 1 game to win if the defense would have held the other team to less than 20 points

DEN 34 KC 24 WIN
DEN 6 JAX 7 LOSS
DEN 23 SAN 13 WIN
DEN 16 TPA 13 WIN
DEN 20 CAR 17 WIN
DEN 31 OAK 3 WIN
DEN 10 CIN 23 LOSS
DEN 28 ATL 41 LOSS
DEN 31 HOU 13 WIN
DEN 34 NOL 13 WIN
DEN 24 OAK25 LOSS
DEN 17 SAN 20 LOSS
DEN 20 MIA 17 WIN
DEN 17 KC 45 LOSS
DEN 37 TEN 16 WIN
DEN 33 IND 14 WIN
DEN 24 IND 49 LOSS
ave 23.8 20.8
ave 27.9 14.3 in wins
ave 18.0 30.0 in losses

What do all the losses have in common except for JAX, the other team all scored 20 or more points on a decent defense. In CIN, ATL, OAK, KC and IND the QBs had time to have tea and crumpets before they had pressure. could stand back there all day and pick our vaunted defense apart.

This illustrates that when we win we win big almost double their scores, when we lost it was by 12.0 points. Three of those games were by 49, 45, and 41 points all of which the QB's had a field day.

I repeat WR is not a priority like DT is.

TXBRONC
01-28-2005, 11:40 AM
by mel kiper

Tight End

1. Alex Smith, Stanford
2. Kevin Everett, Miami
3. Garrett Cross, California
4. Victor Sesay, Missouri
5. Adam Bergen, Lehigh

Defensive End

1. Dan Cody, Oklahoma
2. Erasmus James, Wisconsin
3. Matt Roth, Iowa
4. Marcus Spears, LSU
5. David Pollack, Georgia

Defensive Tackle

1. Travis Johnson, Florida State
2. Shaun Cody, USC
3. Anttaj Hawthorne, Wisconsin
4. Mike Patterson, USC
5. Ronald Fields, Mississippi State

Cornerback

1. Antrell Rolle, Miami
2. Bryant McFadden, Florida State
3. Carlos Rogers, Auburn
4. Corey Webster, LSU
5. Eric Green Virginia Tech

Punter

1. Dustin Colquitt, Tennessee
2. Cole Farder, Oklahoma State
3. Gary Cook, UNLV
4. Chris Kluwe, UCLA
5. Bryce Benekos, UTEP

If you're saying we need a TE I disagree. However, the other positions are need areas for us.

JRWIZ
01-28-2005, 11:42 AM
A few observations and opines:

We don't need a TE, Jeb is going to be the man.

While DE and DT are needs, there are guys that are available in FA that could make immediate impacts, if we could land them. I don't see any of those rookies making the same kind of impact, however, I do agree we do need to draft in that area.

The only CB worth taking out of those five, (Rolle,) will be gone by the time our pick comes around. Our secondary, (should it stay healthy, next year,) should be formidable. I actually think that we need to draft some speed at safety.

We are never going to draft a punter. ;)

We drafted Epstien last year and harris in 2001 neither could beat out the incumbent.

I feel that this is an area that has kept the faider in games over the past few years haveing great lickers. Same goes for SAN and their punter, when we lose 7 yards a punt on every exchange that just places more pressure on the offense.

TXBRONC
01-28-2005, 11:43 AM
Just where did Jake get 4373 yards this year? The WR accounted for a really big chunk of that 2747 yards 63%

You are completely wrong about what we need worst. the D-line cost us games, no pressure means no sacks, or picks, and lots of completed passes.

We dropped a bunch of passes last year mainly from assshley watts and putz. tater dropped a couple of sure TD's

But we scored enough points in all but 1 game to win if the defense would have held the other team to less than 20 points

DEN 34 KC 24 WIN
DEN 6 JAX 7 LOSS
DEN 23 SAN 13 WIN
DEN 16 TPA 13 WIN
DEN 20 CAR 17 WIN
DEN 31 OAK 3 WIN
DEN 10 CIN 23 LOSS
DEN 28 ATL 41 LOSS
DEN 31 HOU 13 WIN
DEN 34 NOL 13 WIN
DEN 24 OAK25 LOSS
DEN 17 SAN 20 LOSS
DEN 20 MIA 17 WIN
DEN 17 KC 45 LOSS
DEN 37 TEN 16 WIN
DEN 33 IND 14 WIN
DEN 24 IND 49 LOSS
ave 23.8 20.8
ave 27.9 14.3 in wins
ave 18.0 30.0 in losses

What do all the losses have in common except for JAX, the other team all scored 20 or more points on a decent defense. In CIN, ATL, OAK, KC and IND the QBs had time to have tea and crumpets before they had pressure. could stand back there all day and pick our vaunted defense apart.

This illustrates that when we win we win big almost double their scores, when we lost it was by 12.0 points. Three of those games were by 49, 45, and 41 points all of which the QB's had a field day.

I repeat WR is not a priority like DT is.

That's is right, WR isn't a priority. I read in the Sporting News that Shanahan wouldn't mind adding other wide out but its more want than a actual need.

JRWIZ
01-28-2005, 12:25 PM
What about the 3rd and 3 to 3rd and inches?

This is the reason why we cannot sustain drives making it much harder on our D.
Not to mention that we have a crappy punter- it makes it all the more important to have the Offense rolling along. What would be easierr is if we had that killer O line we would be in a 3rd and 3 or less most times as opposed to 3rd and 3+. With the D creeping up to defend against the run which we can get the first down on, the short yardage passing play opens up that much more.


You may ahave point here. BUT it will take two or more years to convert our small O-line, to a massive run it down your throats oline that your talking about and lets be frank Mikey is not going to change his scheme to this.

He is comfortable with the fast, strong and smart O-linemen he has always had.

Even if we were to daft 3-4 of the thi season at best they would be workable in the 2006 season at best.

Perhaps we need a JUMBO oline group that only comes in inside the TEN.

Mikey is not going to change his stripes.

TO RC, the league will not outlaw zone blocking perhaps cut/ chop block more penalized but the zone system is here for the foreseeable future. To many other teams are adapting it.

NJBRONCOSFAN
01-28-2005, 12:27 PM
by mel kiper

Tight End

1. Alex Smith, Stanford
2. Kevin Everett, Miami
3. Garrett Cross, California
4. Victor Sesay, Missouri
5. Adam Bergen, Lehigh

Defensive End

1. Dan Cody, Oklahoma
2. Erasmus James, Wisconsin
3. Matt Roth, Iowa
4. Marcus Spears, LSU
5. David Pollack, Georgia

Defensive Tackle

1. Travis Johnson, Florida State
2. Shaun Cody, USC
3. Anttaj Hawthorne, Wisconsin
4. Mike Patterson, USC
5. Ronald Fields, Mississippi State

Cornerback

1. Antrell Rolle, Miami
2. Bryant McFadden, Florida State
3. Carlos Rogers, Auburn
4. Corey Webster, LSU
5. Eric Green Virginia Tech

Punter

1. Dustin Colquitt, Tennessee
2. Cole Farder, Oklahoma State
3. Gary Cook, UNLV
4. Chris Kluwe, UCLA
5. Bryce Benekos, UTEP
These are only seniors, the list does not include underclassmen like Heath Miller.

JRWIZ
01-28-2005, 12:34 PM
We don't need a TE?
I forgot, Jeb was huge with those 30 something receptions...just HUGE.
Bubba Franks?!?!?! Come on!
Bubba Franks had less than 400 yards this season! And that's in an offense who's QB had over 4k yards passing.

Heath Miller, he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can!!!

As RC mentioned, our red zone offense was absolutely horrible...a playmaking TE could go along way in changing that.

Putz really only played about 1/3 of the games, for several different reasons not totally knowledgeable wit all the plays. Used the house as blocking back for runs. Kept him is for some of the passing downs. At the beginning of the year, Carswell was making the catches. Then he dropped off that was when Putz got the chance to shine considering the number of downs he really played this past year his numbers are not all that bad and considering his YAC was second best on the team right behind Rods and then someone else a very distant 3rd.

Putz is a work in progress that far out shines any FA on the market. His numbers are rather remarkable considering the amount of playing time he had at the beginning of the year.

A newbie is going to take 2-4 years to learn the system. Since everyone on this board believes that assshley is due a 3 year pass on having a break out year.

Why should we expect any less from a #1 draft choice at TE?

Lomax
01-28-2005, 01:13 PM
you mentioned the benefit: "And a bigger OL is only really a factor in short yardage situations" but who is to say that just because you place large linemen in there they can't "pull linemen to make downfield blocks on screens, sweeps"?
Foster didn't do too badly at all, and it gives us that much more confidence - as you mentioned in short yardage, which will open up the TE/WR we have already (which I think are adequate enough). Our TE/WR are reasonably good at run blocking but admittedly could be better.Foster plays on the right side, and the Broncos run most of their screens to the left. And when running a sweep, the guard pulls, not the tackle, so that really has nothing to do with Foster either.

I don't have a problem with changing the way we play Offense and yes it will take a couple of years for them to gel, but in the end we will be far better off. Presently we are getting blown off the line a lot esp up the middle. WHatever it takes to give Jake more time to process the information (cuz he just can't process that fast it seems) and far better hole opening for ther run would be the biggest benefit to the Offense.I think the pass blocking is fine, and again, is built around having a mobile pocket that can continue to protect when Jake begins to scramble. They're built for creating cutback lanes and running screens, and when we've done it, it's been highly successful. The reason the OL has been "blown off the line" as you put it has more to do with defenses stacking against the run, and anyone who knows anything about offense will tell you that inconsistent passing kills the running game by allowing the defense to dedicate 8 or 9 defenders to stopping the run, which will also kill your ability to use those bootlegs we love so much.

Also, it's a trade-off. A small line is better equipped to defend quick pass rushers. Case in point, Freeney owned Ogden, but Lepsis did great against him. Bigger isn't always better, even at the line.

Lomax
01-28-2005, 01:35 PM
Just where did Jake get 4373 yards this year? The WR accounted for a really big chunk of that 2747 yards 63%

You are completely wrong about what we need worst. the D-line cost us games, no pressure means no sacks, or picks, and lots of completed passes.

We dropped a bunch of passes last year mainly from assshley watts and putz. tater dropped a couple of sure TD's

But we scored enough points in all but 1 game to win if the defense would have held the other team to less than 20 points

DEN 34 KC 24 WIN
DEN 6 JAX 7 LOSS
DEN 23 SAN 13 WIN
DEN 16 TPA 13 WIN
DEN 20 CAR 17 WIN
DEN 31 OAK 3 WIN
DEN 10 CIN 23 LOSS
DEN 28 ATL 41 LOSS
DEN 31 HOU 13 WIN
DEN 34 NOL 13 WIN
DEN 24 OAK25 LOSS
DEN 17 SAN 20 LOSS
DEN 20 MIA 17 WIN
DEN 17 KC 45 LOSS
DEN 37 TEN 16 WIN
DEN 33 IND 14 WIN
DEN 24 IND 49 LOSS
ave 23.8 20.8
ave 27.9 14.3 in wins
ave 18.0 30.0 in losses

What do all the losses have in common except for JAX, the other team all scored 20 or more points on a decent defense. In CIN, ATL, OAK, KC and IND the QBs had time to have tea and crumpets before they had pressure. could stand back there all day and pick our vaunted defense apart.

This illustrates that when we win we win big almost double their scores, when we lost it was by 12.0 points. Three of those games were by 49, 45, and 41 points all of which the QB's had a field day.

I repeat WR is not a priority like DT is.I'm not concerned about Jake's yardage. I'm concerned about his efficiency. A disproportionate amount of that yardage was between the 20's, but inside the 20 is where our problems lie. Also, as far as scores are concerned, I'm not disputing that in those losses we gave up lots of points. A good proportion of that had to do with our inability to SCORE points in the redzone, our tendency to turn the ball over, our repulsive field position given up on special teams, and our inability to control the clock. Just looking at the points allowed tells a small part of the story.

I agree that DT is a priority for the defense, but without a consistent receiving threat, our defensive numbers will continue to falter.

ttejuco
01-28-2005, 01:45 PM
Nfl Draft Countdown (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/teamneeds.html#den)

1) DT - There are a lot of solid players on the interior but they lack a difference maker

2) TE - Shannon Sharpe retired too late for them to adequately replace him last offseason

3) DE - A replacement for pass rush specialist Bertrand Berry would help

4) QB - Jake Plummer will likely be there for a while but they need a reliable backup option

5) LB - Depth must be replenished after losing John Mobley and Ian Gold last offseason

SethGrandpa
01-28-2005, 04:26 PM
That is an old list, Kiper has Heath Miller as the top TE now. Heck I think he has him as a top 5 player.