PDA

View Full Version : DenverPost Suggests We move Up to Grab Mike Willams



MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 06:14 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~107~2752310,00.html

I like the idea. Im glad someone else realizes that we do need another wide reciever. Mike Williams would be an ideal number one for us when rod smith retires. Im all for it. It probably would take Pryce another first day draft pick and probably another future first day draft pick. But these are the type of bold moves that can turn around the fortune of franchises.

What do you think. Do we risk the depth and potential that the draft brings to trade for a gamebreaker in Mike Williams, when we have issues along the defensive? Im prepraed to only add one or two defensive line through the draft.

Browns
Dolphins
Titans
Vikings
Lions
Cowboys
Texans

I would say the dolphins are our best shot to move up. They only have one first day draft choice. Falling down to 25 still lets them address their oline needs only thing is they just signed two defensive ends and are moving to the 34 defense.

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 06:22 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~107~2752310,00.html

I like the idea. Im glad someone else realizes that we do need another wide reciever. Mike Williams would be an ideal number one for us when rod smith retires. Im all for it. It probably would take Pryce another first day draft pick and probably another future first day draft pick. But these are the type of bold moves that can turn around the fortune of franchises.

What do you think. Do we risk the depth and potential that the draft brings to trade for a gamebreaker in Mike Williams, when we have issues along the defensive? Im prepraed to only add one or two defensive line through the draft.

Browns
Dolphins
Titans
Vikings
Lions
Cowboys
Texans

I would say the dolphins are our best shot to move up. They only have one first day draft choice. Falling down to 25 still lets them address their oline needs only thing is they just signed two defensive ends and are moving to the 34 defense.

Mili Williams is going to be gone in the top 10 to 15 maybe even the top five it will be virtually impossible to move that may spots in the draft to get him. Its not that I wouldn't mind having him but he's out of reach for us.

I also believe that if were going to be competitive the defense has to still be the priority, the offense isn't in as bad of shape.

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 06:31 AM
hmm interesting.. :coffee:

HaroldWoods41SS
03-09-2005, 06:32 AM
forget it we are not getting him

at least not for pryce

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 07:09 AM
forget it we are not getting him

at least not for pryce

Bold Statement Want to bet.

I would Trade Pryce, Our First Rounder this Year, a 3rd this year and a MAYBE a first or second next year for MIke Williams or a top position in the draft.

The way it becomes viable is if we can move above tennesse or if he falls into the teens. In my eyes he is a once in a lifetime player. He would be perfect for our system and situation.

I have a feeling a team like the vikings may be interested as well. They have one whole along the defensive line and it happens to be trevors position. They have the cap space to eat his contract. With the 25th pick they can still draft wide receiver Williamson or Clayton. I think they could be a major trade partner as well with the number 7.

I do remember a few years back the broncos were one of the teams that were working a deal with minnesotta for one of the top 10 or 15 picks in order to draft terrell suggs, but baltimore swooped in. Hopefully we have a better result next time.

I know yall are mad because you cant bring up character issues and personal flaws with this guy.

cuuda
03-09-2005, 07:17 AM
We really need to adress our defense problems .......I'm not saying William isn't worth it.....just that our D needs help

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 07:19 AM
If all we do is address defense, it guarantees a worse offense next year. So do not complain next season if the offense doesn't perform AS well because we adressed only defense.. This is a two sided game.

HaroldWoods41SS
03-09-2005, 07:21 AM
Bold Statement Want to bet.

what you wanna bet

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 07:22 AM
We really need to adress our defense problems .......I'm not saying William isn't worth it.....just that our D needs help

Honestly though anybody thinking we are going to take more than 3 defensive guys in the draft is crazy. Mike will address the offensive line, defensive line, wide recivers and dbs in this draft. Leaving NONE out.

Our defense doesnt need that much help. And i doubt, unless there is another dwight freeney that a first round dlineman will make a major impact that williams could make with us.

The redzone problems that we have would be over. We would have 2 great possesion recievers. 2 great run blocking recievers. We got the deep threat in ashley. He is a guy that can dominate offensively and to me that is one area that we are missing since we lost CP.

HaroldWoods41SS
03-09-2005, 07:25 AM
i say marcus spears in the first round

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 07:33 AM
Mike Williams impact>>>>>>>>>>>Marcus Spears impact.

Williams will be the most unstoppable receiver to enter the NFL since Randy Moss.

At a time when league rules have never been so stacked in favor of offense, Denver is trying to win with defense. Go figure.

all-too-pedestrian offense?

We had the top five offense and couldnt come out of the redzone with 7 too many times for me. We are great at moving the ball. I think that if mike came and was a legitimant target in the redzone, him or any other guy capable, we would be 3x harder to beat. We have dominated for more than 3 quarters defensively, and then finally give up a significant score and its a ball game. Why, because we dont get 7 we get three. We work to hard to have 2 straight 60-70 yard drives just to kick a field goal.

SimonSteele
03-09-2005, 07:41 AM
Honestly Pryce and our first round would be a good step forward. I agree with the sentiments of the article. In an offense friendly NFL we are ignoring our offense and going for defense. The problem is we have many holes on defense. I've been thinking about this. We had the money for maybe one big free agent signing. Fine. We could sign a few rookies too. Keep Pryce. Resign the free agents we needed. Get Warren. Okay moves. But we're spending all this money on has beens, busts, and question marks. We know Pryce is the man. We know he can get it done. People are sour on him because he rode the injury profile all season. It seemed suspect when he played the last regular season game and sat out of the playoffs. People are angry but keep Pryce. Don't waste a lot of money on guys like Ian Gold. I love Gold as much as every Bronco but that money could have been used elsewhere. Not on Hayward, certainly, 25 mil is too much for him, but somewhere on the line.

The draft is where we needed to attack our defensive holes. Also if we could pick up Mike Williams in the draft we would have a completely different team in one or two years. In one or two years we would have a solid D and a stellar O. This year we might have an Offense big enough to get us through the games our D slips up on. This year there might not be so many dropped passes. This year we might not have to rely on a guy who slips and falls on his way into the inzone.

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 07:45 AM
Mike Williams impact>>>>>>>>>>>Marcus Spears impact.

Williams will be the most unstoppable receiver to enter the NFL since Randy Moss.

At a time when league rules have never been so stacked in favor of offense, Denver is trying to win with defense. Go figure.

all-too-pedestrian offense?

We had the top five offense and couldnt come out of the redzone with 7 too many times for me. We are great at moving the ball. I think that if mike came and was a legitimant target in the redzone, him or any other guy capable, we would be 3x harder to beat. We have dominated for more than 3 quarters defensively, and then finally give up a significant score and its a ball game. Why, because we dont get 7 we get three. We work to hard to have 2 straight 60-70 yard drives just to kick a field goal.

Well said my friend.. I hate seeing jason elam kick field goals.. I cannot count how many times we had a great drive last year and blew it in the red zone... You people wanna know how the pats and eagles and colts win? They score in the red zone when we don't, plain and simple.

cuuda
03-09-2005, 08:02 AM
Honestly though anybody thinking we are going to take more than 3 defensive guys in the draft is crazy. Mike will address the offensive line, defensive line, wide recivers and dbs in this draft. Leaving NONE out.

Our defense doesnt need that much help. And i doubt, unless there is another dwight freeney that a first round dlineman will make a major impact that williams could make with us.

The redzone problems that we have would be over. We would have 2 great possesion recievers. 2 great run blocking recievers. We got the deep threat in ashley. He is a guy that can dominate offensively and to me that is one area that we are missing since we lost CP.
Take the "crazy" crap and stick it in your ear or lower........didn't say we would take 3 or more defense players......said we need to adress our defensive problems, and don't tell me we don't have any......and Ashley should and could be a deep threat, but at this moment he not what he should be, each year he gets a little better....made some good catches, but drop too many easy ones.......deep threat, maybe this year

Helderht_
03-09-2005, 08:12 AM
I Would love to see williams playing for denver.... But We must fiz our DL, that's our biggest problem, our Wr's are just fine, maybe next year we would grab a WR but not this year....

DenverFan07
03-09-2005, 08:14 AM
Everyone should take this article with a grain of salt. Neither The Denver Post nor its writers make the decisions for the football team. This article was an opinion not fact. I don't see this happening, I'd rather the team move up in the draft to draft a top notch D-Lineman.

There are still plenty of impact WR's left out in Free Agency that could help firm up the Wideouts we currently have on this team.

LDB
03-09-2005, 08:16 AM
I would say that Williams is worth Pryce and our first round from a Denver perspective. But I doubt that it will happen. You guys should also look at the source of the article. This guy is not exactly old reliable.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 08:23 AM
Take the "crazy" crap and stick it in your ear or lower........didn't say we would take 3 or more defense players......said we need to adress our defensive problems, and don't tell me we don't have any......and Ashley should and could be a deep threat, but at this moment he not what he should be, each year he gets a little better....made some good catches, but drop too many easy ones.......deep threat, maybe this year

I wasnt attacking you boss slow down. All im saying is if we had 7 picks in the draft we arent going to draft 7 defensive players. Our defense is NOT THAT BAD. All im saying is mike williams has the potential to have more of an impact on this season than a defensive lineman.

I can name 2 games we would have one or would have been in a extremely better position to win had we had mike williams. San Diego - Mike williams is the guy catching that lob pass from jake and 6'0 florence is tippin that ball and mike is not dropping it at 6'5 with a 40 inch vertical. Oakland - Darius watts back of the end zone. Maybe thats not williams trying to catch it, its smith or lelie because williams is on the field every moves down a position or stays the same. One we could have tried to make a comeback on Falcons game - dropped pass in the endzone. granted watts was a rookie, i accept the mistake but that could have been ashley or rod or even mike making that play. The kid has the best hands I have ever seen.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 08:29 AM
No one is saying he is John Clayton. He dropped an opinion and now im asking yall your opinion. It may not be realistic, it may not even be in the cards, it may be a decoy for something bigger. Even so the broncos need to shore up the wide reciever postion BEFORE rod retires not after.

jletourneau
03-09-2005, 08:58 AM
Keep pushing the M. Williams thing MillitantDB. IMO Mike Williams is exactly what the Broncos have lacked on both sides of the ball, a playmaker. It would certainly be a far jump to secure a pick where Williams would be available, but not impossible. It would definitely require some luck. Similar to Shanahan's list of 5 he targeted last year, IMO these are the 5 he would look to this year:
M.Williams- big, fast enough, playmaking receiver
M. Spears- ideal run stopping DE for a 3-4
S. Merriman- physical specimen who could be a pass rushing threat on the edge.
T. Johnson- DT great at penetrating and breaking down the pocket
J. Brown- Great OL prospect who WILL block equally well with run and pass.
A lot of the draft will depend on Chicago. Will they draft a WR or a RB. If they take B. Edwards, you would have to jump to #5 to secure Mike Williams. However, if Chicago selects a RB like C. Benson or R. Brown, there is a great chance that Edwards will last until pick 7 for MIN and Williams could be had at nine. Washington could look at him, but Washington was rumored early on to be looking at moving out of the first round or at least moving back. Washington is looking for a DE, so Denver could offer Pryce, a First rounder, and would definitely need to add more picks, hopefully though not from this draft as the Broncos are already in dire straights. Possibly a 2nd and 4th next year.
Either way, I love the idea of Mike Williams. I understand that Denver's biggest need is a DE. But drafting only for need is what creates a "Bust." Mike Williams is a playmaker, a need that the Broncos have had for quite some time now.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-09-2005, 09:11 AM
The article is an amusing read, however unlikely, I think it'd be a great move for us. Williams is a playmaker, pure and simple. We haven't had one on this team since Elway retired. Seriously, no one "gameplans" for Rod Smith. I love Rod as much as anyone but he needs to start grooming his replacement. By going out and getting a star WR like this it shows we are ready to take the next step. If we don't make some big moves we'll end up just like the previous 4 seasons 8-8 to 10-6 fighting for a wildcard spot only to be blown out in the playoffs on the road. All we ever do in the offseason is replace departed average players with more average players. If we're not aggressive in the offseason, we won't be very competitive in the regular season. I'd rather go for broke and end up 1-15 next season (with a high round pick) than end up 10-6 again, lose in the first round, and end up drafting in the 20's again. JMO.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-09-2005, 09:14 AM
Keep pushing the M. Williams thing MillitantDB. IMO Mike Williams is exactly what the Broncos have lacked on both sides of the ball, a playmaker. It would certainly be a far jump to secure a pick where Williams would be available, but not impossible. It would definitely require some luck. Similar to Shanahan's list of 5 he targeted last year, IMO these are the 5 he would look to this year:
M.Williams- big, fast enough, playmaking receiver
M. Spears- ideal run stopping DE for a 3-4
S. Merriman- physical specimen who could be a pass rushing threat on the edge.
T. Johnson- DT great at penetrating and breaking down the pocket
J. Brown- Great OL prospect who WILL block equally well with run and pass.
A lot of the draft will depend on Chicago. Will they draft a WR or a RB. If they take B. Edwards, you would have to jump to #5 to secure Mike Williams. However, if Chicago selects a RB like C. Benson or R. Brown, there is a great chance that Edwards will last until pick 7 for MIN and Williams could be had at nine. Washington could look at him, but Washington was rumored early on to be looking at moving out of the first round or at least moving back. Washington is looking for a DE, so Denver could offer Pryce, a First rounder, and would definitely need to add more picks, hopefully though not from this draft as the Broncos are already in dire straights. Possibly a 2nd and 4th next year.
Either way, I love the idea of Mike Williams. I understand that Denver's biggest need is a DE. But drafting only for need is what creates a "Bust." Mike Williams is a playmaker, a need that the Broncos have had for quite some time now.

Minny is also pursuing Burress right now and if the get him, I doubt they'll go after Williams come draft day. As it is they really don't need any more receivers they need more D players. I think that will happen for them at 7 and they'll go after a WR with their other 1st rounder - someone like Williamson, or Clayton

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 09:18 AM
Although I agree with kiszla about the Mike Williams being a star player in the nfl, I cannot help but notice that he said Plummer lelie and bell are worse than leinart bush and williams... How dare he compare college players to the nfl, thats comparing apples to oranges.. I have read the post plenty of times, this guy always has his head up his azz.

NZrichy
03-09-2005, 09:32 AM
Honestly, I can’t see a DE or DT in the mid 20’s of the draft coming in and helping us so much that it immediately helps our pass rush go to the next level.

Unless one of these guys is a Terrell Suggs (when was he taken btw?) I just can’t see us all of a sudden being playoff bound because of a rookie DE.

Williams could be the next Moss, he could be a bust, but I would rather gamble and try and get him than end up getting a DE that gets 3 sacks in his rookie year.

Our D isn’t that bad, if your D is top 10 it should be enough. Then your O needs to score points.

Rod will be gone soon and why wait till next years draft to get a WR? Will there be a player of Williams calibre next year? I doubt it.

Although the chances of this actually happening are slim to say the least, people need to realise that Williams impact in his rookie year would far surpass any DE we can get.

myoung
03-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Hey I am all for this. Williams would give us a threat we need in the Red Zone and on third down. He is big, strong and has the best hands I have seen out of college in a long time.

I actually think the Browns would be the best team to target. They really want a tackle (even though they have picked up a couple OL in FA). One of the top three tackles will still be left at 25. They could trade down and get a guy they want.

bleedbluorange
03-09-2005, 09:44 AM
Hey I am all for this. Williams would give us a threat we need in the Red Zone and on third down. He is big, strong and has the best hands I have seen out of college in a long time.

I actually think the Browns would be the best team to target. They really want a tackle (even though they have picked up a couple OL in FA). One of the top three tackles will still be left at 25. They could trade down and get a guy they want.
I think the trade would have to take place on draft day. to ensure we get our guy. I would hate to trade for the 7th spot only to have the guy we want go 6th. I do agree that it's time to take a real chance. Taking a chance on Warren or any other of our over the hill free agent defensive linemen wont make us a champion. This team is missing a dynamic player on offense. It also needs defensive line help. We should take a chance.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 10:54 AM
I think the trade would have to take place on draft day. to ensure we get our guy. I would hate to trade for the 7th spot only to have the guy we want go 6th. I do agree that it's time to take a real chance. Taking a chance on Warren or any other of our over the hill free agent defensive linemen wont make us a champion. This team is missing a dynamic player on offense. It also needs defensive line help. We should take a chance.

I concurr gamebreakers are hard to find and this is one guy that is a tad bit below the radar in the big scheme of things. All the superbowl teams in recent memory have gamebreakers.

Pats - defense is a gamebreaker in itself.
Eagles - TO and MCnabb
Rams - Faulk and dynamic special teams
Ravens - Ray Lewis and Jamal Lewis, dynamic defense
Broncos - Terrell Davis

As much as i love champ bailey in this day and age of football it is extremely hard for a defensive back to completely change a game around. He is worth every penny to me, but in my eyes if Wiliams reaches expectations the broncos will be SET for years to come on BOTH sides of the football. I dont think people realize how close to complete this team really is. All we lack is a consistent pass rush and a game breaker. In my eyes its easier to find a consistent pass rush than a gamebreaker the caliber of mike williams. I just dont like the idea of waiting around until rod decides to retire. Williams to me is INSTANT impact. even if he has 300 yards receiving on the season. I know for a fact our red zone chances would go up considerably. he could have 300 yards receiving and 7tdz. id take that over 5 sacks.

bleedbluorange
03-09-2005, 11:21 AM
I concurr gamebreakers are hard to find and this is one guy that is a tad bit below the radar in the big scheme of things. All the superbowl teams in recent memory have gamebreakers.

Pats - defense is a gamebreaker in itself.
Eagles - TO and MCnabb
Rams - Faulk and dynamic special teams
Ravens - Ray Lewis and Jamal Lewis, dynamic defense
Broncos - Terrell Davis

As much as i love champ bailey in this day and age of football it is extremely hard for a defensive back to completely change a game around. He is worth every penny to me, but in my eyes if Wiliams reaches expectations the broncos will be SET for years to come on BOTH sides of the football. I dont think people realize how close to complete this team really is. All we lack is a consistent pass rush and a game breaker. In my eyes its easier to find a consistent pass rush than a gamebreaker the caliber of mike williams. I just dont like the idea of waiting around until rod decides to retire. Williams to me is INSTANT impact. even if he has 300 yards receiving on the season. I know for a fact our red zone chances would go up considerably. he could have 300 yards receiving and 7tdz. id take that over 5 sacks.
Agreed. I think we need a presence in the red zone. We could be a dominate team the way we get to the red zone. We just need to put the points up.

rich5368
03-09-2005, 11:24 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~107~2752310,00.html

I like the idea. Im glad someone else realizes that we do need another wide reciever. Mike Williams would be an ideal number one for us when rod smith retires. Im all for it. It probably would take Pryce another first day draft pick and probably another future first day draft pick. But these are the type of bold moves that can turn around the fortune of franchises.

What do you think. Do we risk the depth and potential that the draft brings to trade for a gamebreaker in Mike Williams, when we have issues along the defensive? Im prepraed to only add one or two defensive line through the draft.

Browns
Dolphins
Titans
Vikings
Lions
Cowboys
Texans

I would say the dolphins are our best shot to move up. They only have one first day draft choice. Falling down to 25 still lets them address their oline needs only thing is they just signed two defensive ends and are moving to the 34 defense.

There is no way we could afford the guy

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 11:36 AM
There is no way we could afford the guy

no comment

bleedbluorange
03-09-2005, 11:36 AM
There is no way we could afford the guyOf course we can afford a rookie. They add money just to sign rookies.

JRWIZ
03-09-2005, 11:40 AM
Not to rain on anyone’s parade here but going into last years draft the consensus on this forum was out biggest need was DL. Since then we have lost another DE and most likely our DT. The other DL folks we have are at best second team, with the possible exception of the new kid from CLE.

Our O-line should be better than last year just because of the experience at both tackle positions. Our RB situation is much improved, as is the WR.

Our problem still remains DL and since we don’t have a #3 or #4 choice this year. Giving away a #1 and pryce and perhaps a #2 for a chance of a “game breaker“ is not a responsible thing to do IMHO.

Pryce will not still be around on draft day so the deal gets cut soon or it does not happen.

Sorry but DL is still the priority, IF we keep Putz and Mikey would be nuts not to, the Red zone scoring should be much better considering all the other areas of improvement.

SimonSteele
03-09-2005, 11:41 AM
We have to do what it takes to afford Williams. This team is looking at another lackluster year. Everyone says we lost it on defense in Indianapolis, but if we could have turned most of our drives into points then the game might have been different.

Kizla is a bronco hater. He can't get over the Elway years and see a replacement has talent. Plummer, Lelie, and Bell, are good. We do need the playmaker. Give Plummer someone special and he will be special too.

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 11:47 AM
The more I read about this Williams fellow, the more I like him. But I (louffromlitt.) don;t make the decisions.. but if I were gm right now... I would consider my options. It could be that williams will go #1 in the draft... that would suck if we traded up and that happened.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 11:49 AM
We have to do what it takes to afford Williams. This team is looking at another lackluster year. Everyone says we lost it on defense in Indianapolis, but if we could have turned most of our drives into points then the game might have been different.

Kizla is a bronco hater. He can't get over the Elway years and see a replacement has talent. Plummer, Lelie, and Bell, are good. We do need the playmaker. Give Plummer someone special and he will be special too.

This guy is one of the most sound posters i have ever seen on here. I agree with every word you said boss. You can get another marcus spears next year. You will not find another player like mike williams in next years draft unless he comes out of the sky.

Our defense is sufficient enough to remain in the top ten. In my eyes our need for dlineman depends on whether or ellis not johnson is signed or not. It is a need that we have and im sure we will address but there is not a dlineman in this draft that has the potential to have an impact and change the as much as mike williams.

bleedbluorange
03-09-2005, 11:50 AM
Not to rain on anyone’s parade here but going into last years draft the consensus on this forum was out biggest need was DL. Since then we have lost another DE and most likely our DT. The other DL folks we have are at best second team, with the possible exception of the new kid from CLE.

Our O-line should be better than last year just because of the experience at both tackle positions. Our RB situation is much improved, as is the WR.

Our problem still remains DL and since we don’t have a #3 or #4 choice this year. Giving away a #1 and pryce and perhaps a #2 for a chance of a “game breaker“ is not a responsible thing to do IMHO.

Pryce will not still be around on draft day so the deal gets cut soon or it does not happen.

Sorry but DL is still the priority, IF we keep Putz and Mikey would be nuts not to, the Red zone scoring should be much better considering all the other areas of improvement. I agree with you about the problems we have on defense. I just dont see the improvement on offense in the red zone. You said "Red zone scoring should be much better considering all the other areas of improvement", I dont know what weve done to get better in the red zone

I would draft a defensive lineman, unless we've got the option to go after a gamebreaker like Williams. He and Lelie would be a good duo in the future.

Like it or not......No matter how good the defense is, we cant win without points. Scoring was every bit as big a problem as the defensive line.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 12:01 PM
Kansas City 16 1089 418.4 6.1 24.9 91 193 47.2 4 14 28.6 117 963
Indianapolis 16 968 404.7 6.7 23.7 70 164 42.7 4 7 57.1 106 801
Green Bay 16 1053 397.3 6.0 22.1 98 207 47.3 8 14 57.1 116 950
Minnesota 16 985 396.2 6.4 21.9 102 195 52.3 6 10 60.0 117 884
Denver 16 1070 395.8 5.9 21.9 78 206 37.9 7 14 50.0 93 880
St. Louis 16 1011 367.3 5.8 20.1 89 211 42.2 13 19 68.4 127 993
New England 16 1035 357.6 5.5 21.5 93 206 45.1 4 10 40.0 101 822
Seattle 16 1034 352.1 5.4 20.0 76 210 36.2 6 11 54.5 79 669
Philadelphia 16 960 351.1 5.9 18.8 72 195 36.9 0 4 0 124 952
San Diego 16 996 346.4 5.6 20.5 97 208 46.6 5 8 62.5 108 875

As you can see the top ten offenses in the league all playoff teams no coincidence. except for kansas city cuz they have no D. We have the second lowest third down conversion rate. Mike Williams can improve dramatically. Last season we only had one viable option on third down and that was rod and every team we played know that. Look at san diego with their big target in Gates and the difference he made. Mike williams as a reciever could be that guy. in 2003 San Diego converted only 31 percent of their first downs. That is the difference of one player. obviously other factors are involved but the emergence of Gates cant be denied. 55 tdz 2004 38 2003

Last year the broncos attempted more field goals than ANYBODY ELSE. Among the top ten teams listed only 2 others new england and philly was in the top ten in attempted field goals last season. But they dont have Jake Plummer either. You get my point. We have so many obstacles to overcome with our offense why not make it easier on ourselves.

The other teams in the top ten in the 30's what are their teams weaknesses. Recievers. Catching the ball. the numbers dont lie. hawks dropped passes, eagles dropped passes.

Its no shock the team with the best reciever in the league has the highest percentage of 3rd down conversions.

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Although I agree with kiszla about the Mike Williams being a star player in the nfl, I cannot help but notice that he said Plummer lelie and bell are worse than leinart bush and williams... How dare he compare college players to the nfl, thats comparing apples to oranges.. I have read the post plenty of times, this guy always has his head up his azz.

I agree, and I'e always thought Kizla was terrible. If you go back and read his columns during the season, he always seemed to try and create controversy and make things larger than they were, probably just to gain notoriety, and there can only be one Woody Paige in the national media. If you want REAL Bronco insight, read Williamson's articles, he is a great beat writer. I tend to ignore Kizla, he doesn't think the game like Williamson or Saunders (also very good) or even Armstrong. Probably the only football writers to take seriously at the post is Williamson and Saunders.

Cugel
03-09-2005, 12:17 PM
Mili Williams is going to be gone in the top 10 to 15 maybe even the top five it will be virtually impossible to move that may spots in the draft to get him. Its not that I wouldn't mind having him but he's out of reach for us.

I also believe that if were going to be competitive the defense has to still be the priority, the offense isn't in as bad of shape.

This is entirely correct. Neither Kizla nor anyone advocating this has bothered to look at what it would cost, even if it were possible (which I doubt). It's just a fantasy article about how nice it would be if we could get Mike Williams. Yes, it would be nice. No, we could never do it.

Conclusion: This is NOT going to happen! Get used to it. :coffee:

Pryce + 1st round #25 is worth about 720pts + 265pts = 985pts. The #7 pick of the 1st round is worth about 1500pts. It's not even close: check this link for draft values (http://www.nflfans.com/draft/staticpages/index.php?page=20040112141754733)

And that's assuming that Pryce is worth the #1 pick in the 3rd round -- not necessarily the case (if some team offered their 3rd round pick for him it would be worth less than 265 pts.)

Broncos #1 pick (720pts) + #2 pick (330pts.) + Pryce = 1315 pts. It's STILL not close! Broncos #1 + #2 + #3 (compensatory pick at the end of 3rd round) + Pryce = around 1431pts (probably still not enough)!

Are you starting to get the picture?

And that assumes that a team would want to move down to #25! Very few teams would even consider such a move, even if the draft and trade values were equal.

So, we're talking about giving up at least 3 picks + Pryce to move up and get Mike Williams, IF we could find some team to trade with us and IF he were still available when we drafted.

You can now see why S*** like this doesn't happen too often. It's just too uncertain and difficult to pull off.

I'm not even going to bother to go into all the reasons why the other team wouldn't go for it, they're just too many.

Just consider whether the players they want in the draft will even be available at #25.

Even if we're willing to sacrifice the entire draft, it JUST WON'T HAPPEN! Period.

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 12:21 PM
Of course we can afford a rookie. They add money just to sign rookies.

Money is alloted by teams to sign rookies, in order to stay under the cap. They just don't "add" money. While the money is probably already been alloted, it probably doesn't include enough to bag a top ten guy. It is more likely that we could move into the teens and still afford a pick in that area. If we move in that range, and Williams or Troy Williamson is there, take 'em, otherwise, it would not be wise to go for broke into the top ten for a Mike Williams.

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 12:23 PM
This is entirely correct. Neither Kizla nor anyone advocating this has bothered to look at what it would cost, even if it were possible (which I doubt). It's just a fantasy article about how nice it would be if we could get Mike Williams. Yes, it would be nice. No, we could never do it.

Conclusion: This is NOT going to happen! Get used to it. :coffee:

Pryce + 1st round #25 is worth about 720pts + 265pts = 985pts. The #7 pick of the 1st round is worth about 1500pts. It's not even close: check this link for draft values (http://www.nflfans.com/draft/staticpages/index.php?page=20040112141754733)

And that's assuming that Pryce is worth the #1 pick in the 3rd round -- not necessarily the case (if some team offered their 3rd round pick for him it would be worth less than 265 pts.)

Broncos #1 pick (720pts) + #2 pick (330pts.) + Pryce = 1315 pts. It's STILL not close! Broncos #1 + #2 + #3 (compensatory pick at the end of 3rd round) + Pryce = around 1431pts (probably still not enough)!

Are you starting to get the picture?

And that assumes that a team would want to move down to #25! Very few teams would even consider such a move, even if the draft and trade values were equal.

So, we're talking about giving up at least 3 picks + Pryce to move up and get Mike Williams, IF we could find some team to trade with us and IF he were still available when we drafted.

You can now see why S*** like this doesn't happen too often. It's just too uncertain and difficult to pull off.

I'm not even going to bother to go into all the reasons why the other team wouldn't go for it, they're just too many.

Just consider whether the players they want in the draft will even be available at #25.

Even if we're willing to sacrifice the entire draft, it JUST WON'T HAPPEN! Period.

I'm suprised that the most recent go-for-broke strategy tried hasn't been brought up in this thread yet. The Saints and Ricky Williams should be enough of a warning sign to show you don't mortgage your future on one draft pick. It would be most wise to add picks, not subtract, ala Philadelphia and New England, the REAL model franchises.

BroncosB2B
03-09-2005, 12:39 PM
why does everyone seem to think we need another big name WR? i thought you all loved watts.

SimonSteele
03-09-2005, 12:54 PM
Thanks for the kind words militant. It could be done, I believe, though I think you and I are in a minority. I can't believe more people don't see the importance of having options out there for Jake. When Sharpe left Jake did well, but he did poorly at the say time. Mike Anderson is a redzone threat because of his strength but we need someone who can really make things happen out there.

Concerning Kiszla, his editorials are decidedly anti-Bronco. No matter what happened we were doomed. Whether we won or not. At first it was we were a bunch of pretenders who would never make it to the playoffs, then when it looked as though we would make it he backed off a bit and focused on other negative things. Like the middle finger. Usually I disagree with him. Two weeks ago he was saying to trade down and get a runningback. Two weeks before that it was a quarterback. I mean eventually someone who changes his tune so often will throw out a good idea.

P.S. I do love think Watts is great, but we need someone who will develop this year and Watts is a question mark for the next few years if you ask me.

JRWIZ
03-09-2005, 12:55 PM
Of course we can afford a rookie. They add money just to sign rookies.


I think you are incorrect here, it is part of our cap. is it allocated a bit differently, but still part of our total cap.

Javalon
03-09-2005, 01:34 PM
I'm suprised that the most recent go-for-broke strategy tried hasn't been brought up in this thread yet. The Saints and Ricky Williams should be enough of a warning sign to show you don't mortgage your future on one draft pick. It would be most wise to add picks, not subtract, ala Philadelphia and New England, the REAL model franchises.
Thanks for being a voice of reason!

Mike Williams is a good prospect but by no means is he a guarantee. The cost to trade up to get him would be extremely prohibitive. The several first and second round picks we'd have to throw in to move up into the #5 - #12 range would kill all kinds of potential future contributors for the Broncos. How many great receivers make their their teams Super Bowl caliber? How many touches per game does a wide receiver get? Even the best receivers start to have a tougher time when the field gets shorter in the red zone. Anyway, look these top 15 receivers this century that have not turned out to be the next Randy Moss (to borrow MilitantDBFan's comparison):

Larry Fitzgerald #3
Roy Williams #7
Reggie Williams #9
Lee Evans #13
Michael Clayton #15
Charles Rogers #2
Andre Johnson #3
Donte Stallworth #13
David Terrell #8
Koren Robinson #9
Rod Gardner #15
Peter Warrick #4
Plaxico Burress #8
Travis Taylor #10

Yes, there are some good players there. But there are also some duds. And how many of those good players pushed their team over the top? Hell, even Randy Moss didn't push his team over the top.

Also, I'd suggest that a really good tight end would be more important to our offense than a wide receiver. Our 3rd-down percentage & red zone offense were very good with Shannon Sharpe and a running back with a burst out of the backfield. Well, I think Bell will fill Portis's role this year so we'd be back in great shape if we could find a top tier tight end.

My point is that Mike Williams might be a good prospect but he's far from a sure thing. What if we traded our first round pick (in addition to other picks/players) to move up, drafted Williams and he does okay for us, but the team that takes our #25 pick drafts the next Randy Moss? Moss was only the #21 pick in his draft which shows just how much pre-draft analysts really know. And who knows what college player is going to step it up this year and be considered "the next Randy Moss" next year.

There's no need to make a desperation move in the draft when we have enough other needs to fill outside of receiver.

cheach
03-09-2005, 01:48 PM
Anyone that says our defence is okay is crazy. we have lost hayward,we losing pryce, we lost kennedy. Is it just me or is it lookin not too great for the broncos

ARBroncos
03-09-2005, 01:55 PM
We didn't have Pryce last year.. Hayward would have been impossible to keep because of the money and even with him we had almost no pass rush.. and although I think Kennoy was great I think that a better coverage safety can get the job done back there... don't worry too much.

The motto of the current NFL should be do what the Patriots do. Would they do this? Nope.

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 02:28 PM
I'm suprised that the most recent go-for-broke strategy tried hasn't been brought up in this thread yet. The Saints and Ricky Williams should be enough of a warning sign to show you don't mortgage your future on one draft pick. It would be most wise to add picks, not subtract, ala Philadelphia and New England, the REAL model franchises.

Nice post guy! I'm glad you brought us the drafting of Ricky Williams by the Saints its definitely what a team should not do. No number one pick is worth giving up all others just to get him. Again ONKA very nice post.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 02:54 PM
Thanks for being a voice of reason!

Mike Williams is a good prospect but by no means is he a guarantee. The cost to trade up to get him would be extremely prohibitive. The several first and second round picks we'd have to throw in to move up into the #5 - #12 range would kill all kinds of potential future contributors for the Broncos. How many great receivers make their their teams Super Bowl caliber? How many touches per game does a wide receiver get? Even the best receivers start to have a tougher time when the field gets shorter in the red zone. Anyway, look these top 15 receivers this century that have not turned out to be the next Randy Moss (to borrow MilitantDBFan's comparison):

Larry Fitzgerald #3
Roy Williams #7
Reggie Williams #9
Lee Evans #13
Michael Clayton #15
Charles Rogers #2
Andre Johnson #3
Donte Stallworth #13
David Terrell #8
Koren Robinson #9
Rod Gardner #15
Peter Warrick #4
Plaxico Burress #8
Travis Taylor #10

Yes, there are some good players there. But there are also some duds. And how many of those good players pushed their team over the top? Hell, even Randy Moss didn't push his team over the top.

Also, I'd suggest that a really good tight end would be more important to our offense than a wide receiver. Our 3rd-down percentage & red zone offense were very good with Shannon Sharpe and a running back with a burst out of the backfield. Well, I think Bell will fill Portis's role this year so we'd be back in great shape if we could find a top tier tight end.

My point is that Mike Williams might be a good prospect but he's far from a sure thing. What if we traded our first round pick (in addition to other picks/players) to move up, drafted Williams and he does okay for us, but the team that takes our #25 pick drafts the next Randy Moss? Moss was only the #21 pick in his draft which shows just how much pre-draft analysts really know. And who knows what college player is going to step it up this year and be considered "the next Randy Moss" next year.

There's no need to make a desperation move in the draft when we have enough other needs to fill outside of receiver.

You guys are missing it. Of all of those teams that drafted those great wide recievers, those teams are nowhere near complete as the broncos are this day. Why do you think those teams are picking in the top 10 or 15 i the first place. We are one of the most talented teams on defense as well as offense. Im not saying we will be over the top with the addition, but we will be a upper echelon team. We wont lose to teams like the bengals, raiders or jaguars. Understand just how good we are and just how great we could become. I guess you guys just arent seeing what im seeing. If bell is going to be like portis we didnt win anything when he was here so why would it be different this time around. You cannot teach height. Mike williams is a bonafide TARGET on third and redzone situations. something we do not have consistently. At the very least of production for his career Mike williams would be a redzone target and thats all. But its exactly what our offense needs. I dont think you guys realize how CLOSE we are to doing something special. I saw it last year. what this year brings i dont know but if we add Mike Williams i would feel much better.

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 03:02 PM
You guys are missing it. Of all of those teams that drafted those great wide recievers, those teams are nowhere near complete as the broncos are this day. Why do you think those teams are picking in the top 10 or 15 i the first place. We are one of the most talented teams on defense as well as offense. Im not saying we will be over the top with the addition, but we will be a upper echelon team. We wont lose to teams like the bengals, raiders or jaguars. Understand just how good we are and just how great we could become. I guess you guys just arent seeing what im seeing. If bell is going to be like portis we didnt win anything when he was here so why would it be different this time around. You cannot teach height. Mike williams is a bonafide TARGET on third and redzone situations. something we do not have consistently. At the very least of production for his career Mike williams would be a redzone target and thats all. But its exactly what our offense needs. I dont think you guys realize how CLOSE we are to doing something special. I saw it last year. what this year brings i dont know but if we add Mike Williams i would feel much better.

Yeah the point is those receivers haven't changed the fortunes of their respective teams by themselves. I think Mike Williams is going to be a great receiver but if we gave up all our picks just get him that would be moronic because then have not addressed any other needs. As it has been mentioned before the drafting of Ricky Williams is the poster child of what not to do with your draft picks.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-09-2005, 03:03 PM
You guys are missing it. Of all of those teams that drafted those great wide recievers, those teams are nowhere near complete as the broncos are this day. Why do you think those teams are picking in the top 10 or 15 i the first place. We are one of the most talented teams on defense as well as offense. Im not saying we will be over the top with the addition, but we will be a upper echelon team. We wont lose to teams like the bengals, raiders or jaguars. Understand just how good we are and just how great we could become. I guess you guys just arent seeing what im seeing. If bell is going to be like portis we didnt win anything when he was here so why would it be different this time around. You cannot teach height. Mike williams is a bonafide TARGET on third and redzone situations. something we do not have consistently. At the very least of production for his career Mike williams would be a redzone target and thats all. But its exactly what our offense needs. I dont think you guys realize how CLOSE we are to doing something special. I saw it last year. what this year brings i dont know but if we add Mike Williams i would feel much better.


We have no defensive line. Our LB core and Secondary can't do it by themselves. Even the best will be exploited if there is no pass rush, and our small LBs will be gashed by the run with no D-linemen to clog up blockers and make tackles.

We have no idea if Walls or Middlebrooks can stay healthy and hold down the fort opposite Bailey. Lynch is a liability in coverage. I don't see a great defense by any means.

On offense, we have questions at RB. Durability for Bell, Griffin, and Anderson. Droughns could be traded and if not, he might wear down again towards the end of the season.

Plummer is Jekyll and Hyde. He could win us games or he could lose us games singlehandedly. Our WRs are solid. TE is a question mark. Our O-line will be getting an overhaul next season when Lepsis and Nalen leave.

I don't think we are that close to being a top team. We aren't even a playoff team until our defensive line actually becomes a reality instead of a hodgepodge of castoffs and stopgaps.

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 03:05 PM
You guys are missing it. Of all of those teams that drafted those great wide recievers, those teams are nowhere near complete as the broncos are this day. Why do you think those teams are picking in the top 10 or 15 i the first place. We are one of the most talented teams on defense as well as offense. Im not saying we will be over the top with the addition, but we will be a upper echelon team. We wont lose to teams like the bengals, raiders or jaguars. Understand just how good we are and just how great we could become. I guess you guys just arent seeing what im seeing. If bell is going to be like portis we didnt win anything when he was here so why would it be different this time around. You cannot teach height. Mike williams is a bonafide TARGET on third and redzone situations. something we do not have consistently. At the very least of production for his career Mike williams would be a redzone target and thats all. But its exactly what our offense needs. I dont think you guys realize how CLOSE we are to doing something special. I saw it last year. what this year brings i dont know but if we add Mike Williams i would feel much better.

Portis was one of the top five most explosive playmakers in his time in Denver, what makes Mike Williams more explosive that he can actually add wins to a roster? D.J. Williams was one of the best rookie OLBs of rcent memory, but he failed to add onto victories either. In fact, the Eagles didn't use Owens to get over their playoff hump, winning with roughly the same team they had the last time. What this should show you is that one player cannot improve a team so significantly that he alone is worth 3 more wins. It just doesn't happen in the parody filled era of the NFL. If Williams was worth three or more wins alone, wouldn't he be a first pick-of-the-draft lock?

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 03:08 PM
Yeah the point is those receivers haven't changed the fortunes of their respective teams by themselves. I think Mike Williams is going to be a great receiver but if we gave up all our picks just get him that would be moronic because then have not addressed any other needs. As it has been mentioned before the drafting of Ricky Williams is the poster child of what not to do with your draft picks.

You cant name 5 solid players from that saints team. They put the franchise on the shoulders of one guy. We already have a TEAM that is near completion. We have a system that produces already. Mike Williams will SOLVE our third down, red zone situation. To me that is our only problem on offense besides jakes turnovers. top 5 offense and top 5 defense bottom of the league red zone % middle of the pack 30 down%.

Look at the teams those recievers were going to. When they came they had to be the guy. Hines Ward wasnt a factor when Plaxico got drafted. All of those guys were drafted by poor non playoff caliber teams. We are a superbowl caliber team lacking exactly what mike williams brings.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 03:16 PM
Portis was one of the top five most explosive playmakers in his time in Denver, what makes Mike Williams more explosive that he can actually add wins to a roster? D.J. Williams was one of the best rookie OLBs of rcent memory, but he failed to add onto victories either. In fact, the Eagles didn't use Owens to get over their playoff hump, winning with roughly the same team they had the last time. What this should show you is that one player cannot improve a team so significantly that he alone is worth 3 more wins. It just doesn't happen in the parody filled era of the NFL. If Williams was worth three or more wins alone, wouldn't he be a first pick-of-the-draft lock?

different strokes for different folks. We are not the dolphins or the 49ers. We dont have the first pick for a REASON. I understand we have a defensive line in shambles, but its still 11 guys that have to get on that field and compete. Who was reggie hayward before he had 8 sacks 2 years ago. Who was bert berry before he had 10 sacks 2 years ago. Who are Kelly Herndon and Lenny Walls yet they stepped up. Who was terrell davis. Who was Shannon Sharpe. THese are professional athletes. I have faith in the guys we have right now. Im not saying trade 7 picks for mike williams and mike williams alone. What im saying is we have a MAJOR problem besides the dline. REDZONE PRODUCTION. The chiefs had the worst defense in the league yet were in EVERY SINGLE game they played because they come out with 7 instead of 3 when they get there. Mike Williams coming to our team would be a tremendous upgrade. You have to score in order to win football games and we were not able to do it consistantly because we struggled on third down and red zone situations. Situations were the games are won.

Cugel
03-09-2005, 03:20 PM
Portis was one of the top five most explosive playmakers in his time in Denver, what makes Mike Williams more explosive that he can actually add wins to a roster? D.J. Williams was one of the best rookie OLBs of rcent memory, but he failed to add onto victories either. In fact, the Eagles didn't use Owens to get over their playoff hump, winning with roughly the same team they had the last time. What this should show you is that one player cannot improve a team so significantly that he alone is worth 3 more wins. It just doesn't happen in the parody filled era of the NFL. If Williams was worth three or more wins alone, wouldn't he be a first pick-of-the-draft lock?

I LOVE IT! the "parody" filled era of the NFL! :laugh:

"2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation"

The NFL IS in a "parody filled era" all right!

If you're going to have a spelling error, why not have an inspired one like that?!

:laugh:

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 03:24 PM
I LOVE IT! the "parody" filled era of the NFL! :laugh:

"2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation"

The NFL IS in a "parody filled era" all right!

If you're going to have a spelling error, why not have an inspired one like that?!

:laugh:


Oh yeah, my mistake, "parity" is more like it isn't it. I'll proof read some of my longer posts, but I just rushed myself I guess.

It does make since though, and very fitting that we will be copying the defense of the champs, huh.

urinal_cake
03-09-2005, 03:28 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~107~2752310,00.html

I like the idea. Im glad someone else realizes that we do need another wide reciever. Mike Williams would be an ideal number one for us when rod smith retires. Im all for it. It probably would take Pryce another first day draft pick and probably another future first day draft pick. But these are the type of bold moves that can turn around the fortune of franchises.

What do you think. Do we risk the depth and potential that the draft brings to trade for a gamebreaker in Mike Williams, when we have issues along the defensive? Im prepraed to only add one or two defensive line through the draft.

Browns
Dolphins
Titans
Vikings
Lions
Cowboys
Texans

I would say the dolphins are our best shot to move up. They only have one first day draft choice. Falling down to 25 still lets them address their oline needs only thing is they just signed two defensive ends and are moving to the 34 defense.

I agree about Miami. I think the Phins are going to want to trade down for more picks, especially since they're sort of rebuilding and only have 2 or 3 picks in this year's draft.™

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 03:29 PM
You cant name 5 solid players from that saints team. They put the franchise on the shoulders of one guy. We already have a TEAM that is near completion. We have a system that produces already. Mike Williams will SOLVE our third down, red zone situation. To me that is our only problem on offense besides jakes turnovers. top 5 offense and top 5 defense bottom of the league red zone % middle of the pack 30 down%.

Look at the teams those recievers were going to. When they came they had to be the guy. Hines Ward wasnt a factor when Plaxico got drafted. All of those guys were drafted by poor non playoff caliber teams. We are a superbowl caliber team lacking exactly what mike williams brings.

But Williams doesn't SOLVE our needs of defense and that is where the problem is. Are going line Mike Williams up at DE or DT? Me thinks not.

OhNoKoolAid
03-09-2005, 03:29 PM
different strokes for different folks. We are not the dolphins or the 49ers. We dont have the first pick for a REASON. I understand we have a defensive line in shambles, but its still 11 guys that have to get on that field and compete. Who was reggie hayward before he had 8 sacks 2 years ago. Who was bert berry before he had 10 sacks 2 years ago. Who are Kelly Herndon and Lenny Walls yet they stepped up. Who was terrell davis. Who was Shannon Sharpe. THese are professional athletes. I have faith in the guys we have right now. Im not saying trade 7 picks for mike williams and mike williams alone. What im saying is we have a MAJOR problem besides the dline. REDZONE PRODUCTION. The chiefs had the worst defense in the league yet were in EVERY SINGLE game they played because they come out with 7 instead of 3 when they get there. Mike Williams coming to our team would be a tremendous upgrade. You have to score in order to win football games and we were not able to do it consistantly because we struggled on third down and red zone situations. Situations were the games are won.


That is fine, and I agree that it is a serious concern, but I just believe that there are better ways to solve the problem without selling the farm. A guy like Chris Henry from West Virginia could be had at a second round price, and offers similar posession qualities. Fred Gibson, although not nearly as polished, could also do the job AND become a gamebreaking threat in the vertical game, and with the Broncos play-action offense, size and downfield speed would make a good combination. Larry Brackins and Vincent Jackson are other tall recievers that can fill the role. I'm not saying the idea is bogus, but I think that there is a way to handle the problem under the current perameters we are faced with.

nickmeyer
03-09-2005, 03:33 PM
I would rather trade up and Grab Alex Smith at QB in the Draft than trade for Williams. If we are going to make a trade to move up to the top six it will cost us this year and next years 1st and possibly a 2nd plus Pryce.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 03:41 PM
But Williams doesn't SOLVE our needs of defense and that is where the problem is. Are going line Mike Williams up at DE or DT? Me thinks not.

who solves our needs on defense. I can only name 3 defensive lineman that have come in and turn the league upside down in recent memory. Peppers, Freeney and Kevin Williams. There are no players anywhere near the caliber of those.

Our offense did not help the defense in the colts game in either year. The defense got stops early in the game and offense couldnt move past the 50 only ONE TIME. We converted 25%. 3 out of 12 3rd down conversions. Against a defense that was good at only creating turnovers. Everyone knew that in order to beat the colts you have to keep the ball OUT of THEIR hands. IN OURS and we couldnt do it. How many 3 and outs did we have that game.

People look at the score and say the defense played horribly. But if we score on the first or second possesion after the colts had been stopped twice, its a ball game the whole way through. The bottom line is we can have 14 straight defensive stops but if we cant get the ball in the endzone ourselves whats the point.

Cugel
03-09-2005, 03:45 PM
I agree about Miami. I think the Phins are going to want to trade down for more picks, especially since they're sort of rebuilding and only have 2 or 3 picks in this year's draft.™

Sure the Fish would like to move down a bit -- but probably not all the way to #25! In addition, they have the #2 pick of the draft! NO WAY IN HELL we're getting that!

Not even for ALL our draft picks combined, plus Trevor Pryce and Droughens thrown in for good measure!

They could trade down to somewhere in the top 10 (assuming someone really wanted Cedric Benson, Alex Smith or Braylon Edwards, say) and needed to move up a few places to get them.

You'll see them try to move down for some draft extra picks, but the Broncos WON'T be any part of their considerations.

You people need to get a grip on reality! Last year the Giants gave up their #1, plus a #1 THIS year, just to move up 4 places to get Manning!

That gives you some idea what those top draft picks are worth!

broncosfan247
03-09-2005, 03:51 PM
If there would be some way the Broncos could trade up to pick up Mike Williams, I'd definitely be behind them 100%. I agree that I think we should be looking towards the future and not right now. Otherwise we are going to be in a real world of hurt when Rod Smith retires (which I predict will be after this season).

I mean look at the wide receiver core in the nfl. IF Williams would be the most unstoppable wide receiver since Randy Moss, what do you think a guy like that could do on our offense? Which I feel is already performing beyond its caliber. And I too agree that our defense is already better than it was last year with Gold coming back and the signing of Warren. I mean there is no big named DE's left in free agency, and I could see us using a 2nd round pick on one in the draft.

Go Mikey! Doesn't hurt to try. ;)

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 04:37 PM
who solves our needs on defense. I can only name 3 defensive lineman that have come in and turn the league upside down in recent memory. Peppers, Freeney and Kevin Williams. There are no players anywhere near the caliber of those.

Our offense did not help the defense in the colts game in either year. The defense got stops early in the game and offense couldnt move past the 50 only ONE TIME. We converted 25%. 3 out of 12 3rd down conversions. Against a defense that was good at only creating turnovers. Everyone knew that in order to beat the colts you have to keep the ball OUT of THEIR hands. IN OURS and we couldnt do it. How many 3 and outs did we have that game.

People look at the score and say the defense played horribly. But if we score on the first or second possesion after the colts had been stopped twice, its a ball game the whole way through. The bottom line is we can have 14 straight defensive stops but if we cant get the ball in the endzone ourselves whats the point.

Point is our defense didn't get the stops and didn't create turnovers. We have done poor job of doing that for three years running. Right now its the defense that needs the most attention. Also whoever said we need d-line that set League on fire? I sure didn't.

What's the point? You get fourteen stops that's fourteen less opporunities Manning has to carve up your defense. Fact is we didn't because defensively we couldn't match up and the got up on early with their offense.

Giving up your entire draft for one player is bad buisness that is fact. It didn't work for Minnesota when they traded all their pick for Hershel Walker and didn't for the Saints. It just terrible move. I like Mike Williams would love to have him but not at the expense of overlooking ever other need, its just plain foolish.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 04:46 PM
Point is our defense didn't get the stops and didn't create turnovers. We have done poor job of doing that for three years running. Right now its the defense that needs the most attention. Also whoever said we need d-line that set League on fire? I sure didn't.

What's the point? You get fourteen stops that's fourteen less opporunities Manning has to carve up your defense. Fact is we didn't because defensively we couldn't match up and the got up on early with their offense.

Giving up your entire draft for one player is bad buisness that is fact. It didn't work for Minnesota when they traded all their pick for Hershel Walker and didn't for the Saints. It just terrible move. I like Mike Williams would love to have him but not at the expense of overlooking ever other need, its just plain foolish.

The difference is those teams were building.Out of contention. We are not building. We are completing a team. Mike Williams is a once in a lifetime TYPE of player. Im not saying he will be jerry rice or randy moss for that fact. Im saying he is exactly what our team needs. MORE than a defensive lineman. The best defensive lineman in this draft is not better than Mike Williams. 30 tdz in two seasons. Those teams needed those players to build around. Mike Williams will not be asked to go out and get 1000 yards. dont take my word for it though.

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 04:49 PM
Notre Dame defensive coordinator Kent Baer: "He's got deceptive speed. He's a long-strider and you don't realize he's faster than most receivers...The only thing that jumps out how to defend him is to try to keep two guys on him. But is there anything physically we can do? Not really."

California defensive coordinator Bob Gregory: "He causes huge, major problems...It's not like you can just tell a corner to go and cover him. Because of how big he is, you can't do much on him one-on-one. And if you put another guy on him, your run defense suffers because you take a guy out of the box."

Jim Rhode, Los Angeles Times: "Mike Williams is college football's best receiver...Williams does it all. He catches balls long, short and in between, working the sideline and over the middle as well. He hauls in seemingly unreachable passes like Go-Go Gadget, drags defenders around like Ben-Hur, serves as a defender magnet so others can steal away against single coverage and provides a security blanket for Leinart."

Dan Pompei, The Sporting News: "Mike Williams is a very special player...What makes Williams unique is he has a power forward's body but can make plays like a point guard. His hands are exceptional. There really isn't anyone like him in the NFL. Never has been. He will be a physical mismatch for every defender he plays against. He will make catches when he is covered. He will be an extraordinary weapon in the red zone and a playmaker over the middle....Because he can adjust to the throw and catch the ball away from his body, the window he provides a quarterback to throw to is closer to the size of a glass partition."

Former USC Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Carson Palmer: "Mike is a tremendous talent. He's real mature. He's the type of guy who makes quarterbacks look real good. I know that all I had to do was put it up there and he was going to go get it."

Steve Bisheff, Orange County Register: "Williams...is the best college football player I've seen in several years...He is a 6-foot-5, 230-pound leaping, twisting freak of nature. If he is not as fast as Randy Moss, he is bigger and stronger. He has soft, Marvin Harrison-like hands and runs like a halfback after the catch. Williams is Terrell Owens without the attitude or the silly end zone gyrations...This guy is a football player, not just a pass catcher...He makes every opposing defense alter its scheme

MilitantDBFan
03-09-2005, 04:50 PM
What i said, he said, has been said before, just keep doing your thing he said, say no more.

TXBRONC
03-09-2005, 04:50 PM
The difference is those teams were building.Out of contention. We are not building. We are completing a team. Mike Williams is a once in a lifetime TYPE of player. Im not saying he will be jerry rice or randy moss for that fact. Im saying he is exactly what our team needs. MORE than a defensive lineman. The best defensive lineman in this draft is not better than Mike Williams. 30 tdz in two seasons. Those teams needed those players to build around. Mike Williams will not be asked to go out and get 1000 yards. dont take my word for it though.


Mili, I respect your point of view but I'm just not convienced your right. From what I have seen there is not set of circumstance that I see this a viable option. I don't want to end up getting into war of words with, we just don't agree and maybe its better if we leave it at that.

NameUsedBefore
03-09-2005, 04:58 PM
Hey, if we get into some position to nab Mike Williams, we better. He's a great receiver and physical one, the type we need right now. Our defense is pretty much fine, and I'm sure we could find a defensive-tackle or two in the later rounds.

I'm more for us getting a defensive tackle, but if Mike Williams is there we'd be stupid not to take him.

threeamigos
03-09-2005, 05:00 PM
i don't really know one way or the other, but tell me this wouldn't be fun to watch for the next few years:

Ashley Lelie - 6'3" 200lbs.
Darius Watts - 6'2" 188lbs.
Mike Williams - 6'5" 230lbs.

those are 3 big fockers who could do some serious damage.

LoufromLItt.
03-09-2005, 05:03 PM
I'm not sure about the darius #2 big focker.. will he gain weight?

threeamigos
03-09-2005, 05:21 PM
I'm not sure about the darius #2 big focker.. will he gain weight?

i hope so. if he can get to 200lbs. without losing too much speed, those three would be a hell of a trio.

all three are tall, have long-azz arms, and can jump like maniacs.

rcsodak
03-09-2005, 10:25 PM
You people wanna know how the pats and eagles and colts win? They score in the red zone when we don't, plain and simple.

Uh...yeah...and that's why the pats tagged their kicker.....:rolleyes:

Fat Joe
03-09-2005, 10:33 PM
I didnt realize that no one else thought we need another WR. We do in a way, but in a way we dont. I dunno, I think its gonna come down to whos available when we get our shot.

squints
03-09-2005, 10:35 PM
If he is open or the trade is right I think Shanny will grab him in a heart beat

cuuda
03-10-2005, 08:19 AM
We can argue this point till the cows come home.........whatever........who in their right mind would trade for our draft pick.....we would really have to GIVE a lot for someone like Williams.......if he was there within our range, then yeah, go for him, but he's not.......and didn't someone say that we couldn't get past the 50 yd. line in the first half against the Ravens.......why? Because of Defense? .....tough question I quess.......we have goood receivers and they are getting better each year(AL) and a tight end would be nice(Putizer (sp) has some good potential, but we still need help on defense

TXBRONC
03-10-2005, 08:24 AM
The cost is way to high if not darn near impossible. Just to have the chance to get him we would either have to trade up to the number seven slot with Vikings who are dead set on getting him or trade up past them. Either way trading all your other picks away just for one guy just isn't a very wise move imho.

bleedbluorange
03-10-2005, 08:28 AM
The cost is way to high if not darn near impossible. Just to have the chance to get him we would either have to trade up to the number seven slot with Vikings who are dead set on getting him or trade up past them. Either way trading all your other picks away just for one guy just isn't a very wise move imho.I think that any move is risky. I dont see any moves being made to elevate this team to a championship. I understand playing it safe, but our record reflects all the safe moves weve made. We havent fell off with a huge mistake and we havent made a serious run with a gamble that paid off.

TXBRONC
03-10-2005, 08:31 AM
I think that any move is risky. I dont see any moves being made to elevate this team to a championship. I understand playing it safe, but our record reflects all the safe moves weve made. We havent fell off with a huge mistake and we havent made a serious run with a gamble that paid off.

True any move is a risk. But some moves carry a higher degree of risk than others. Only two times I seen a move like this made the only team that benefited from it was the team that received all the additonal picks.

bleedbluorange
03-10-2005, 08:37 AM
True any move is a risk. But some moves carry a higher degree of risk than others. Only two times I seen a move like this made the only team that benefited from it was the team that received all the additonal picks.I'm just ready for us to be serious contenders. For that to happen we need a dynamic player on offense. I dont know if Mike Williams is that guy, but I understand the need to score in the red zone. I happen to think that is just a big a problem as the defensive line. I mean we were among the worst in the red zone. We got there so many times and came up short. If we scored more that would help the defense. Those of you that dont see the problems on offense and think that our offense is just fine, just dont see what I see.

I understand defenive line should be the focus. We have ignored that area for years. We also need a playmaker in the redzone to be contenders.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-10-2005, 08:59 AM
I'm just ready for us to be serious contenders. For that to happen we need a dynamic player on offense. I dont know if Mike Williams is that guy, but I understand the need to score in the red zone. I happen to think that is just a big a problem as the defensive line. I mean we were among the worst in the red zone. We got there so many times and came up short. If we scored more that would help the defense. Those of you that dont see the problems on offense and think that our offense is just fine, just dont see what I see.

I understand defenive line should be the focus. We have ignored that area for years. We also need a playmaker in the redzone to be contenders.


I have no problem with this point of view. Red zone production is obviously a key aspect to winning.

I just think we have the players already. If you line up Quentin Griffin and Tatum Bell in the backfield, then you have two players that are extremely fast that can do screen passes, slants, or draws to any side of the field. That will stretch a defense.

With the defense stretched, you can have Plummer QB sneak or scramble around. You have Rod doing his out and in routes. Lelie should be our fade guy, though we always try to do the fade to Smith. Lelie has an extreme vertical leap and good hands, why we don't utilize him more, I do not know.

Putzier has the speed to exploit a spread defense, but we seldom call his number in the red zone.

I place the red zone issues on play calling. Shanahan always seems to call an offtackle play or a bootleg. Teams are ready for that. He needs to spread out the defense and actually allow Putzier to be a focus in the endzone exploiting LBs. He should also call a few sweeps or screens, something to mix up the defense now and then. But, I won't lay it all on Mike, Plummer has to make good decisions when he's allowed to pass.

bleedbluorange
03-10-2005, 09:03 AM
I have no problem with this point of view. Red zone production is obviously a key aspect to winning.

I just think we have the players already. If you line up Quentin Griffin and Tatum Bell in the backfield, then you have two players that are extremely fast that can do screen passes, slants, or draws to any side of the field. That will stretch a defense.

With the defense stretched, you can have Plummer QB sneak or scramble around. You have Rod doing his out and in routes. Lelie should be our fade guy, though we always try to do the fade to Smith. Lelie has an extreme vertical leap and good hands, why we don't utilize him more, I do not know.

Putzier has the speed to exploit a spread defense, but we seldom call his number in the red zone.

I place the red zone issues on play calling. Shanahan always seems to call an offtackle play or a bootleg. Teams are ready for that. He needs to spread out the defense and actually allow Putzier to be a focus in the endzone exploiting LBs. He should also call a few sweeps or screens, something to mix up the defense now and then. But, I won't lay it all on Mike, Plummer has to make good decisions when he's allowed to pass.I dont like the playcalling in the redzone. It's hard to say what to do, I just know scoring in the redzone has got to be an issue. It also needs to be addressed. Whether it's play calling or personel.

rcsodak
03-10-2005, 09:53 AM
Its called getting some beef on the O line that can actually push the line, instead of falling backwards into the rb/qb.
Denver needs another (or 2) 300+lb'er.
That will help in both short yardage AND redzone efficiencies.....

Cugel
03-10-2005, 09:53 AM
We can argue this point till the cows come home.........whatever........who in their right mind would trade for our draft pick.....we would really have to GIVE a lot for someone like Williams.......if he was there within our range, then yeah, go for him, but he's not.......

Finally! Somone with some intelligence says the OBVIOUS!

This C*** will NEVER in a million years happen. So, honestly why speculate about such ridiculous scenarios! I posted what the ACTUAL trade values of the top draft pick we're talking about earlier in this thread, but no-one seems to want to bother to actually THINK about that! Much easier to live in a world of PRETEND.

"What if we could get the Colts to trade Peyton Manning for our #1 pick + Trevor Pryce and maybe throw in a #1 or #2 next year. Wouldn't that be great?"
"No, because we don't need a QB, Plummer's OK, we need help on the DL and we need the draft picks."
"Yes, but Manning's would really be great in our offense, it'd be worth it!"

:goofy:

That's about the reality level of this discussion! Take some idiotic fantasy and pretend it has real world significance.

A top 5-7 pick in the draft (because that's what it would take to be sure you got Williams) is worth more than the ENTIRE BRONCOS DRAFT PLUS TREVOR PRYCE!

Will Shanahan trade all his picks in 2005 (plus maybe some in 2006) for the chance to draft Mike Williams?

NO!

Will some team trade the #7 pick (or so) for the #25 plus Trevor Pryce (& even the entire rest of the Broncos draft picks thrown in).

NO!

:fight:

JRWIZ
03-10-2005, 10:21 AM
I have no problem with this point of view. Red zone production is obviously a key aspect to winning.

I just think we have the players already. If you line up Quentin Griffin and Tatum Bell in the backfield, then you have two players that are extremely fast that can do screen passes, slants, or draws to any side of the field. That will stretch a defense.

With the defense stretched, you can have Plummer QB sneak or scramble around. You have Rod doing his out and in routes. Lelie should be our fade guy, though we always try to do the fade to Smith. Lelie has an extreme vertical leap and good hands, why we don't utilize him more, I do not know.

Putzier has the speed to exploit a spread defense, but we seldom call his number in the red zone.

I place the red zone issues on play calling. Shanahan always seems to call an offtackle play or a bootleg. Teams are ready for that. He needs to spread out the defense and actually allow Putzier to be a focus in the endzone exploiting LBs. He should also call a few sweeps or screens, something to mix up the defense now and then. But, I won't lay it all on Mike, Plummer has to make good decisions when he's allowed to pass.

As I was reading the post few posts I pretty much camer to teh same conclusion that we already have play makers on the team.

Last year Q was out, tater had not really stepped up because of injury- being a rookie, whatever. Putz just got started late in the year, our O line finally became a unit towards the tail end of the season. Most of the receivers excepting Rod now have an extra years exprience under their belts.

I don't see the urgency that everyone else does.

Someone mention he was ready to become a championship team and was willing to do whatever necessary to do that. Pssst Mikey is also, but he does have some constraints placed on him. If not for the restraints, the ultra rich teams would have all the talent on them and would buy the super bowl every year. Danny boy, Jerry and Al are all trying to do that, but have yet to accomplish it.

TXBRONC
03-10-2005, 10:21 AM
I'm just ready for us to be serious contenders. For that to happen we need a dynamic player on offense. I dont know if Mike Williams is that guy, but I understand the need to score in the red zone. I happen to think that is just a big a problem as the defensive line. I mean we were among the worst in the red zone. We got there so many times and came up short. If we scored more that would help the defense. Those of you that dont see the problems on offense and think that our offense is just fine, just dont see what I see.

I understand defenive line should be the focus. We have ignored that area for years. We also need a playmaker in the redzone to be contenders.

You'll get no arguement from about wanting us to be a serious contender, I'm always up for that. More than anything BBO I just think it would terrible decision to trade every pick we have for one guy. I think Mike Williams has the potential to be great but if no other need is addressed what good does it really do us? The Chiefs have great offense and no defense, how far has that gotten them?

I totally agree we should address that need, just not at the expense of everything else. Historically its not a wise move.

JRWIZ
03-10-2005, 10:26 AM
Finally! Somone with some intelligence says the OBVIOUS!

This C*** will NEVER in a million years happen. So, honestly why speculate about such ridiculous scenarios! I posted what the ACTUAL trade values of the top draft pick we're talking about earlier in this thread, but no-one seems to want to bother to actually THINK about that! Much easier to live in a world of PRETEND.

"What if we could get the Colts to trade Peyton Manning for our #1 pick + Trevor Pryce and maybe throw in a #1 or #2 next year. Wouldn't that be great?"
"No, because we don't need a QB, Plummer's OK, we need help on the DL and we need the draft picks."
"Yes, but Manning's would really be great in our offense, it'd be worth it!"

:goofy:

That's about the reality level of this discussion! Take some idiotic fantasy and pretend it has real world significance.

A top 5-7 pick in the draft (because that's what it would take to be sure you got Williams) is worth more than the ENTIRE BRONCOS DRAFT PLUS TREVOR PRYCE!

Will Shanahan trade all his picks in 2005 (plus maybe some in 2006) for the chance to draft Mike Williams?

NO!

Will some team trade the #7 pick (or so) for the #25 plus Trevor Pryce (& even the entire rest of the Broncos draft picks thrown in).

NO!

:fight:

The kiddies that live in lala land and play madden all day will never get it. Reality to them is the two SB rings and they will never understand why it can't happen all the time.

Great eye opening post hope some of the clowns will read it, understand it, will stop the nonsense.

bleedbluorange
03-10-2005, 12:02 PM
Finally! Somone with some intelligence says the OBVIOUS!

This C*** will NEVER in a million years happen. So, honestly why speculate about such ridiculous scenarios! I posted what the ACTUAL trade values of the top draft pick we're talking about earlier in this thread, but no-one seems to want to bother to actually THINK about that! Much easier to live in a world of PRETEND.

"What if we could get the Colts to trade Peyton Manning for our #1 pick + Trevor Pryce and maybe throw in a #1 or #2 next year. Wouldn't that be great?"
"No, because we don't need a QB, Plummer's OK, we need help on the DL and we need the draft picks."
"Yes, but Manning's would really be great in our offense, it'd be worth it!"

:goofy:

That's about the reality level of this discussion! Take some idiotic fantasy and pretend it has real world significance.

A top 5-7 pick in the draft (because that's what it would take to be sure you got Williams) is worth more than the ENTIRE BRONCOS DRAFT PLUS TREVOR PRYCE!

Will Shanahan trade all his picks in 2005 (plus maybe some in 2006) for the chance to draft Mike Williams?

NO!

Will some team trade the #7 pick (or so) for the #25 plus Trevor Pryce (& even the entire rest of the Broncos draft picks thrown in).

NO!

:fight:The whole notion came from a article in a paper. My position is if the scenerio that the writer came up with could work, then look in to it. I wouldnt want to give up every pick to get him. I think that everyone that says all we have to do is switch up the play calling is wrong. I think we do need a player that is unstoppable in the red zone or third down.

Not that we can creep into the top ten picks through a trade, but the value at the top of the draft isnt that great. I think it's highly likely that teams will be willing to trade out of the top spots. At what cost I dont know. I do know that san francisco is screwed unless they trade out of the number one pick. There few players at the top of the draft the are really coveted by a team.

rogue719
03-10-2005, 05:40 PM
Mike Williams impact>>>>>>>>>>>Marcus Spears impact.

Williams will be the most unstoppable receiver to enter the NFL since Randy Moss.

At a time when league rules have never been so stacked in favor of offense, Denver is trying to win with defense. Go figure.



New England won three of the last four Superbowls using primarily their defense. Go figure.

SimonSteele
03-11-2005, 06:49 AM
A couple of things.

They don't use Putzier in the redzone for a couple of reasons, but the main reason is his blocking skills--he really has none. He recently stated himself in an article that at Boise State he never blocked at all. So in the redzone, they tend to bring in the solid blockers, Carswell and Hape. The signing of the new tight ends coach is a good thing because he sees star caliber material in our young tight end, however, Putz will have to overcome some of his physical limitations this year (article said Sharpe did the same thing, blocked creatively instead of with strength) if he will be a legitimate redzone target.

Everyone says defensive line. Defensive line. Well it seems it's being addressed on some level. Still, look at another thread on a similar subject. In the playoffs, in six drives we scored three points. If we could have held in better, had someone to help us control the clock, then that would be less time for Peyton to expose Roc Alexander. We've got potential, we had a solid D all year, we're addressing the line, but we're not addressing the fact that we score field goals and not touch downs. We will not win until we score. That simple.

Road_Apples
03-11-2005, 08:47 AM
I place the red zone issues on play calling. Shanahan always seems to call an offtackle play or a bootleg. Teams are ready for that. ....

But, I won't lay it all on Mike, Plummer has to make good decisions when he's allowed to pass.

two points that I have been saying also:

1. PlumBer has a mental meltdown far too often and I am counting on more of the same from him - his improvements will come not with honing his personal experience, but by limiting and grooming by the coaching staff regarding play calling... I think his intelligence and "productive" creativity is limited (unlike left handed throws). I am curious as to how well he scored on the Wonderlic....

2. This above scenario leds me to believe that the above limitations and the staff's confidence in their O'Line to pound it out for positive yards when the D is crowding the box (esp. in the red zone, but in any short yardage situation) infers their lack thereof. Whereas they love to pull and move the linemen, tete a tete North-South smash mouth football is generally avoided as it is their well known weakness. This stands out when the chips are on the table in the Red Zone and the D co-ordinators know it that's why they put just enough bodies in the box take it away and watch for plays going outside as the focus and the Broncos have fell in line becasue they don't think they can pound it out up the middle.

I realize it might be OK to have PlumBer do sneaks, as there is little to no fear of damage to his noggin or his IQ if he gets smacked around but I still don't think it's a wise thing to suggest this as a regular play.
It is my opinion that we need to beef up the O'line with players that can move the line a yard forward even when lightly outmanned - thus we need someone like a Baas, or Brown.

Javalon
03-11-2005, 09:37 AM
Can't you people read?

This was a column, not an article from a beat writer. Mark Kizla was giving you his
OPINION, as he is the only major Denver newspaper writer to figure out Shanny is a clown. He was just basically saying what the Broncos have done this offseason amounts to a pile of crap, and that a bold move, like moving up to get Williams, would be refreshing to see, since the Broncos moves, thus far have been stale and unimaginative.


Mike Wiliams is a lock for the top seven picks, and will not last past Minnesota.
Razor, I thought you were going to ease up on the Shanahan insults and focus more on the football. :confused:

Why not chime in with what you think the parameters of such a trade might be and whether or not it would be a good idea.

Some have suggested that trading our first rounder plus Pryce plus two more first day picks (this year's or next's) would be worth it.

TXBRONC
03-11-2005, 09:50 AM
because he sees, despite the fact that Newsome has done an incredible job of putting talent on the team, his Billick can't get it done. He's envious of Shanahan, and always has been.

Yep Billick the "offensive genius" that he is has yet to put descent offense to date. And talk about unimaginative.

Javalon
03-11-2005, 09:56 AM
Now guys... I wasn't insulting Razor. I was just asking him to voice his opinion on the (ludicrous, my opinion) idea of this trade without bringing the Shanny-bashing into it. Razor isn't such a bad guy when he refrains from blindly ripping the Broncos...which happens on a rare occasion. :D

JRWIZ
03-11-2005, 10:07 AM
Yep Billick the "offensive genius" that he is has yet to put descent offense to date. And talk about unimaginative.


Even withn all the offensive stars that newsome has aqquired

1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Jonathan Ogden T UCLA
1 26 Ray Lewis ILB Miami
2 55 DeRon Jenkins CB Tennessee
5 153 Jermaine Lewis WR Maryland
6 172 Dexter Daniels LB Florida
6 186 James Roe WR Norfolk State
7 238 Jon Stark QB Trinity, Ill.
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Peter Boulware OLB Florida State
2 34 Jamie Sharper MLB Virginia
2 58 Kim Herring FS Penn State
3 64 Jay Graham RB Tennessee
4 118 Tyrus McCloud LB Louisville
5 134 Jeff Mitchell C Florida
6 167 Steve Lee FB Indiana
6 194 Cornell Brown OLB Virginia Tech
7 205 Chris Ward DE Kentucky
7 234 Wally Richardson QB Penn State
7 236 Ralph Staten DB Alabama
7 238 Leland Taylor DT Louisville

1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 10 Duane Starks CB Miami
2 42 Pat Johnson WR Oregon
5 124 Martin Chase DT Oklahoma
5 133 Ryan Sutter S Colorado
6 154 Ron Rogers LB Georgia Tech
6 164 Sammy Williams T Oklahoma
7 241 Cam Quayle TE Weber State

1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 10 Chris McAlister CB Arizona
4 105 Brandon Stokley WR Louisiana-Lafayette
4 129 Edwin Mulitalo G Arizona
7 216 Anthony Poindexter SS Virginia

2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee
1 10 Travis Taylor WR Florida
3 75 Chris Redman QB Louisville
5 148 Richard Mercier G Miami
6 186 Adalius Thomas OLB Southern Mississippi
6 191 Cedric Woodard DT Texas

2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 31 Todd Heap TE Arizona State
2 62 Gary Baxter CB Baylor
3 92 Casey Rabach C Wisconsin
4 126 Edgerton Hartwell ILB Western Illinois
5 161 Chris Barnes RB New Mexico State
6 194 Joe Maese C New Mexico
7 231 Dwayne Missouri DE Northwestern

2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 24 Ed Reed SS Miami
2 52 Anthony Weaver DE Notre Dame
4 112 Dave Zastudil P Ohio
4 123 Ron Johnson WR Minnesota
5 155 Terry Jones TE Alabama
6 195 Lamont Brightful CB Eastern Washington
6 206 Javin Hunter WR Notre Dame
6 207 Chester Taylor RB Toledo
6 209 Chad Williams SS Southern Mississippi
7 236 Wes Pate QB Stephen F. Austin

2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 10 Terrell Suggs OLB Arizona State
1 19 Kyle Boller QB California
3 77 Musa Smith RB Georgia
4 109 Jarret Johnson DE Alabama
4 134 Ovie Mughelli FB Wake Forest
5 146 Aubrayo Franklin NT Tennessee
5 173 Tony Pashos T Illinois
6 182 Gerome Sapp FS Notre Dame
7 223 Trent Smith TE Oklahoma
7 250 Mike Mabry C Central Florida
7 258 Antwoine Sanders DB Utah

2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
2 51 Dwan Edwards DE Oregon State
3 82 Devard Darling WR Washington State
5 153 Roderick Green OLB Central Missouri
6 187 Josh Harris QB Bowling Green
6 199 Clarence Moore WR Northern Arizona
7 244 Derek Abney WR Kentucky
7 246 Brian Rimpf T East Carolina


After looking at this list I'm not so sure of Newsome.
Jamal Lewis and Todd Heap look like the only keepers in the group. Musa who? After him were Chris brown, Justin FArgas, Dominack Davis, Onterrio Smith, Q and a few more.

And didn't he trade away Priest or maybe even cut him?

I do have to say the the Defensive guys are pretty impressive, but isn't the coach an offensive guru?

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-11-2005, 10:15 AM
John Ogden, Brandon Stokely, Edwin Mulitalo, Jamal Lewis, Chestor Taylor, Todd Heap, Casey Rabach were all extremely solid for offensive players.

Cugel
03-11-2005, 10:27 AM
The whole notion came from a article in a paper. My position is if the scenerio that the writer came up with could work, then look in to it. I wouldnt want to give up every pick to get him. I think that everyone that says all we have to do is switch up the play calling is wrong. I think we do need a player that is unstoppable in the red zone or third down.

Not that we can creep into the top ten picks through a trade, but the value at the top of the draft isnt that great. I think it's highly likely that teams will be willing to trade out of the top spots. At what cost I dont know. I do know that san francisco is screwed unless they trade out of the number one pick. There few players at the top of the draft the are really coveted by a team.

1. The whole notion came from an article in the Post by Mike Kizla, who says more stupid things in every article than can be straightened out in a month of posting. His job is not to make sense, it's to stir the pot and he acknowledges that. The serious analysis job is Bill Williamson's. Notice also that Kizla DOESN'T say what it would cost the Broncos to move up enough in the draft to get Williams, or that Shanahan would ever consider doing it.

2. If you want to get an idea what draft picks are worth here's a site: http://www.nflfans.com/draft/staticpages/index.php?page=20040112141754733
It's not exactly what NFL GM's would consider, but it's close enough. You can tell that the value of high draft picks is extreme by the fact that the NY Giants gave up the #1 pick in this years' draft plus the #4 pick overall last year (plus some other picks in 2004 I think) simply to move up the equivalent of 4 places to draft Manning (they traded their #4 pick Phillip Rivers plus the draft picks, but it was a done deal before the draft started). Notice that the #1 pick in the draft is worth 3000pts and the Broncos #25 pick is worth 720pts -- less than 1/3 as much! The Broncos #2 pick (which I assume is #57 overall) is worth 320, the Broncos #3 pick (I'm not sure exactly because there may be added picks here but I believe it comes at the end of the 3rd round, so it's about 112pts) and so on. That's why I say that the entire Broncos draft isn't worth 3000pts, or even 1500pts, the value of the #7 pick overall in the first round.

3. Moving into the top 10 picks is so expensive because coaches and GM's really value those picks. Sure SF would like to move down and get additional picks, but how far? They might want to move down to #5-7 or something, but to #25? No way.

No, the number system isn't EXACTLY the values given, but it's close enough that you can add up the numbers and see if a proposed trade is even in the ballpark.

Then consider what the trade would mean to the team giving up the high pick. If the draft is considered "thin" moving out of the top 10 might mean you go from a sure fire "can't miss" prospect to a big drop-off in talent, even in the thinnest draft there's going to be a few great players.

But, since rookies are paid according to a set formula based on where they were drafted, that means you probably have to overpay them. You can't tell the agent, "yes we drafted your client #11, but we think he's not NEARLY as talented as the #10 pick, so we won't pay him that much".

In that case, the top 10 picks might be worth even MORE this year, not less.

Bulldawg
03-11-2005, 10:54 AM
if it could be done then AWESOME i defenitley would'nt mind having Mike Williams as our WR next season

Cugel
03-11-2005, 12:04 PM
I am not impressed with the trading of a fourth-ropunder for an underachieving DT that Cleveland did not want, and who has a one-year deal. IF he has a good season, he, like Reggie Hayward and Bert berry before him will prioce himseld out of the Broncos budget for next season as well...so unless Warren dominates and
the Broncos win the Super Bowl, what does his addition amount to? a one-year rental, like Ellis Johnson.
. . . .
You tell me. If you are Minnesota, or one of the other teams, what do the Broncos have to offer for the seventh (or earlier pick) pick. Just look at what the Vikings had to give up to get it in the first place.....

That is the last possible spot you could get Williams, who will go at seven or earlier....what do the Broncos have to offer to moce up into the Top seven??

The answwer is, at a minimum, both of your first rounders in 2005 and 2006 at a minimum.....would you want to do that?

I like Mike Wiliams. I am already on record as saying he is the best player in this Draft, period. He is going to be a great Pro.....

BUT....to move up from 25 to the Top seven would be costly...

To me, Vincent Jackson would make more sense, as he would be a similar TYPE of player, albeit not as special as Williams....but then again, no one new much about a small college wideout named Terrell Owens out of Tennessee-Chattanooga, either....so Jackson maybbe one of those players that explodes onto the NFL scene...he certainly has the measureables.....he is also smart, having already graduated with an 'A' average from Northern Colorado, good citizen, etc....would be a Colorado fan favorite?

If you crave a WR, spend your second on a player like Jackson and keep your first for DeMarcus Ware :D

Exactly! Gerrard Warren is a stop gap. I was hoping he'd sign a 2-3 year contract, then at least we would get the benefit of taking a chance on him, since he'd be tied up for a few years at a reasonable salary. But now it's head he-wins or tails we lose. He's a FA next year. Either he proves all the critics wrong by his play in Denver or he doesn't. In either case, he's probably gone next year and we're back to square 1 looking for a DL since the Broncos won't have the cap space to outbid everybody for Warren (if he suddenly becomes the monster he was supposed to be coming out of college).

Javalon
03-11-2005, 12:17 PM
You tell me. If you are Minnesota, or one of the other teams, what do the Broncos have to offer for the seventh (or earlier pick) pick. Just look at what the Vikings had to give up to get it in the first place.....

That is the last possible spot you could get Williams, who will go at seven or earlier....what do the Broncos have to offer to moce up into the Top seven??


The answwer is, at a minimum, both of your first rounders in 2005 and 2006 at a minimum.....would you want to do that?

I like Mike Wiliams. I am already on record as saying he is the best player in this Draft, period. He is going to be a great Pro.....


BUT....to move up from 25 to the Top seven would be costly...
There you go. That's exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. Yes, I'd love to have Mike Williams but, no, he's not worth the cost it would take to trade up for him. Thanks for the opinion.

TXBRONC
03-11-2005, 12:21 PM
There you go. That's exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. Yes, I'd love to have Mike Williams but, no, he's not worth the cost it would take to trade up for him. Thanks for the opinion.


That's right, to get Mike Williams we would sacrifice way too much. Besides I don't see the Vikings being interested because from what I have heard they are chopping at the bit to draft this guy.

Javalon
03-11-2005, 12:25 PM
That's right, to get Mike Williams we would sacrifice way too much. Besides I don't see the Vikings being interested because from what I have heard they are chopping at the bit to draft this guy.
If he's as good as reputed, the Vikes could have given up troubled-child Moss but still find a close replacement along with the Raiduhs best linebacker, and probably saving money to boot. Of course, the Vikings have a lot of other holes to fill so this is no slam dunk.

JRWIZ
03-11-2005, 12:30 PM
John Ogden, Brandon Stokely, Edwin Mulitalo, Jamal Lewis, Chestor Taylor, Todd Heap, Casey Rabach were all extremely solid for offensive players.


Yep Seven solid players over 8 years great odds. Especially for that offensive wizard they have for a coach.

urinal_cake
03-11-2005, 12:30 PM
What's your take on David Boston?....I know you both probably posted this elsewhere last week.....but I was on, uh, vacation :D


I say sign him to a one-year deal...

Sure, as long as it doesn't cost the Broncos more than a grilled cheese sandwich and a bottle of gatorade.™

TXBRONC
03-11-2005, 12:31 PM
John Ogden, Brandon Stokely, Edwin Mulitalo, Jamal Lewis, Chestor Taylor, Todd Heap, Casey Rabach were all extremely solid for offensive players.

Yeah those are all very solid players, but looking at the rankings Billick has never put a potent offense on the field in his tenure thus far and he supposedly has a reputation as offensive minded coach. Stokely is solid but he really didn't come into his own until this year.

Javalon
03-11-2005, 12:32 PM
What's your take on David Boston?....I know you both probably posted this elsewhere last week.....but I was on, uh, vacation :D


I say sign him to a one-year deal...
I don't like Boston at all. He was a very good player for a while but I'm concerned about his locker room presence, his health (just failed a physical), his use of steroids, etc.

His issues are just not worth the risk, in my opinion. I don't believe we're that desperate for a wide receiver.

JRWIZ
03-11-2005, 12:37 PM
Yeah those are all very solid players, but looking at the rankings Billick has never put a potent offense on the field in his tenure thus far and he supposedly has a reputation as offensive minded coach. Stokely is solid but he really didn't come into his own until this year.

Yep when we played the BAL Colts this year in the playoffs, he sure spanked us.

TXBRONC
03-11-2005, 12:39 PM
Which means the Ravens will probably sign him :D

BUT, he did have his best season with Plummer....AND he is at the end of his Professional rope....he has no leverage, so if you get a year out of him as a stop-gap, I say he's worth that....


I think the same could be said for the Ravens as well. He could fit in as stop-gap until better weapons can be found/drafted. Btw thank you for asking me my take on Boston, it was pleasent surprise. :D

Javalon
03-11-2005, 12:59 PM
Which means the Ravens will probably sign him :D

BUT, he did have his best season with Plummer....AND he is at the end of his Professional rope....he has no leverage, so if you get a year out of him as a stop-gap, I say he's worth that....
Or the Raiduhs.

And if he comes cheap, the Broncos might give him a try. But it's my personal preference to keep him away from Denver.