Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Krieger: Broncos lack real offensive weapon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by I Eat Staples View Post
    There is no foolproof way to predict future value. The best you can do is gather a rough estimate of where a player will go, and what the "market value" for that player is. For example, Tyson Alaualu (sp?) was taken far earlier than expected. The Jags reached. Even if he becomes a great player, they could have had that great player later on in the draft.
    How do you know they could have had the same great player later on in the draft? How do you know he would still be there, and if he's the guy you really want, you need to make sure you can take him when you can.

    If you can have a great player in the 2nd round, there's no reason to take him in the 1st. Finding talent from the middle rounds is important, but if you jump at that talent and take it in the early rounds, it completely defeats the purpose of finding good value in the middle rounds.

    Tebow, of all players, is especially a reach. He has a much longer learning curve than most rookie QBs. He's the kind of player you take specifically if he falls into your lap, not the kind of player you trade up for. If he fell to us in the 2nd round, and we took him with one of the back to back 2nd round picks we originally had, it would have been a good pick. A value pick. Because if he busted, he would be one bust of three picks in the top 50. Not bad at all.

    By trading up for Tebow, we set ourselves up for failure if he fails. It's three wasted picks, not just one. Even if another team wanted to trade up and give up those picks, the smart move is to concede and let them have him. If there's a nice car that you like at an auction, but someone else is going to pay an unreasonably high price for it, the smart move is to let them have it. We payed an unreasonably high price for Tebow. If the Bills or Vikings wanted to reach for him and give up too much, we should have let them be the idiots, not stoop to their level and beyond.

    If Tebow fell to us, I would have been happy. We simply gave too much up. It wasn't a value pick. Like you said, you can't guess future value. You don't pay a higher price because of a guess. If Tebow goes on to be a star, it still wasn't a good value pick, because like you said no one knew his future value at the time of the pick. Of course, you won't hear me complaining, because I'll be thrilled to have a star QB no matter how we got him. But hopefully you understand my point.
    I see your point but I don't agree with it. As for your statement that you don't pay a higher price because of a guess, that's ALL the draft is. It's a guess based on who you think can play at the level of the NFL and contribute to your team.

    You wrote
    For example, Tyson Alaualu (sp?) was taken far earlier than expected. The Jags reached.
    You are basing your insistence that a team reached because of where someone else thought a player should go in the draft, like the people you listen to were an authority on the matter.

    Sure, you break down where you think guys will go, but that's so you can make your own plan, not because a pundit makes a guess that so-and-so is a third round level player. I doubt that any team in the NFL looks at the Kipers or Mayocks for an idea where a player should fall on the board. They are the guys who evaluate talent for a living and see who works in the NFL and who doesn't. I would take the coaching staff of the Broncos over Mel Kiper any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    The Kipers and Mayocks are hired by the networks to try to break down the draft for the fans, the lay people, who watch. They certainly are not an "authority" that is recognized by the coaches in the NFL.

    You and every other person on the forums have to get the ideas of where someone falls on the board from the Kiper crowd because NONE of us are privy to sit in the draft rooms with the coaches and owners and see how those calls are made. So, Kiper thinks Tebow is a third round pick and if the Broncos pick him up in the first, the Broncos "reached."

    Rather, it's more likely that Kiper is not as good at recognizing talent as the coaching staff of the Broncos. We won't know until 2-3 years down the road and if Tebow develops into our starting QB.

    Let me see if I can break it down a bit to help you understand.

    You are a head coach of an organization and you know what you want and what you are looking for. You don't target over a hundred to two hundred guys in your draft. You know what you want and you put together your list of perhaps half that many.

    As the draft comes, the guy you wanted with your high pick is no longer there, so you want to maximize your value. You want Tebow, but you would prefer to take him in the second or even third and you have greater needs than another QB. You move back and then move back again because the guy you want, Thomas, is likely to still be there at 22. He is and you take him.

    You think you are pat until early in the second but you see at least one team and possibly two moving up to take the QB you want, Tebow, in the first. Cursing that you have to give up some of those draft picks, you negotiate to move back into the first round and take Tebow, not because you wanted to take him in the first, but because of the QB's on the board, he's the only one you wanted. THAT'S the only "value" that matters on draft day.

    Value is important and it was clearly important to McDaniels, who traded back multiple times and still got the receiver he wanted. Tebow (or Thomas or Decker, for that matter) may not work out, but the draft picks he gave up may not work out either, but he got the guy he wanted, which is the whole purpose of the draft. Sure, if you can, you want to get more guys that can play for you too, but best bet is you have a handful of people that you think can not only play at this level, but also play in your system the way you want.

    Since the draft is a gamble in the best of times, it's more important to get the guys you want if you can get them, since you are gambling that you can make that player work on your team.

    YOU may think Tebow in the first is a reach. It's an opinion and it's yours. I think if Tebow works out to be the next Super Bowl winning QB for the Broncos and takes the team back to the promised land, he's worth every bit of what we gave up to get him. That's my opinion and, I suspect, Josh's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry1977
    replied
    Yeah why can't this clown write an original article? I said all of that months ago.

    Eight defenders coming to a box near you...

    Leave a comment:


  • iowabronco24
    replied
    Ya I would have to agree with this statement. Nobody on the offense would really "scare" me if I liked another team playing against the Broncos if you looked at it that way. I do however really like this defense, and I think they can keep us in many games to give our offense enough chances to make something happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • japfaff
    replied
    Originally posted by rst08tierney View Post
    Why do so many fans here need a tissue and a hug after an honest article on the team is written and they dont agree with the views of the author.

    Reality is VERY hard to swallow at times but I would rather live in the real world then pretend this team is going some where come January.
    Couldn't agree more.... some people are so disillusioned about this team. Just looking at this title my first thought was...."well no kidding" for the last 3 years we have had 2 offensive weapons....now they are both traded..... All we have is a rb that has potential, a project wr, eddie royal and jabar gaffney.... Yeah I don't think that there is an NFL team that is weaker across the skill positions than us, especially with #27 having a bum wheel

    Leave a comment:


  • rst08tierney
    replied
    Why do so many fans here need a tissue and a hug after an honest article on the team is written and they dont agree with the views of the author.

    Reality is VERY hard to swallow at times but I would rather live in the real world then pretend this team is going some where come January.

    Leave a comment:


  • LSIGRAD09
    replied
    I personally hope our lack of a weapon is our greatest strength, where the other team expects no playmakers, and BOOM! They let down their guard and plays are made!

    Leave a comment:


  • Peerless
    replied
    Our offensive weapon is Kyle Orton. That master of the dink and dunk.

    Leave a comment:


  • owninit
    replied
    Originally posted by rst08tierney View Post
    I understand your point and I am far from a debbie downer but look at the article as a realist.

    Who are our play makers on paper? Going by last years stats the article is 100% accurate. We have nothing. Just accept it for what it is.

    Now on the flip, someone on this team will step up during the season, I have no doubt about that, but if your going to weigh the entire season on Orton and Gafney being the playmakers, its going to be a long year.

    Until proven on the field in an actual game, our rookies mean nothing on paper so the argument that Decker and Thomas are going to be the back bone of this team should be taken with a grain of salt until they actually put some stats up.

    Eddie Royal, maybe? Last year Eddie was the incredible disappearing man. So people who say we still have Eddie are some what correct, Eddie is on the broncos roster, but what did he contribute on offense last year other then a major drop off from his rookie season? Until Eddie steps up and becomes a contributor on offense, he is NOT a play maker on this team.
    I'm sure the defensive coordinator of Cincy is going to say:

    ......"Just play soft zone, hell they don't have anyone i've heard about on ESPN......"


    Nope no playmakers here, look at the roster, and hand us the win.....

    Leave a comment:


  • rst08tierney
    replied
    Originally posted by owninit View Post
    I don't agree with this, the offense has play makers.....you're just not going to hear about them on ESPN every hour.


    Dallas has a "playmaker", in Dez, but did dez average over 25 YPC last year......nope, but DT did.


    In college Decker droped THREE balls his entire career......


    The point some of these guys were getting at is Austin in dallas "wasn't a playmaker" until this year?????.....BS he was a playmaker, just none of the MSM thought so becuase he wasn't featured on sports center.

    Anyone watching a game new TD was special, but he wasn't covered as a "playmker" unit AFTER his 2000 yd season, when in fact he's been making a HUGE difference far before then.

    Look at what gaffney did in the game marshal wasn't in, it would probably supprise you that he lead the team in YPC last year, even though he wasn't getting TD's....

    Orton had 3700 yds and 21 TD's in his first year in McD's system, like him or not, it's going to be AT least that good this year, and that's better than Cassel, and KC was hailed for getting a "franchise QB", who's a difference maker.


    The fact of the matter is that there are playmakers all over this team, and while ESPN doesn't cover them, they are there.

    As for the o-line and having two rookie starter, it's not all that uncommon, especially in a power blocking scheme. You put a hat on a guy, and move him, it's not as complicated as somethings.



    Simply being a debbie downer, doesn't make you any more knowledgable, or a "realist", look at the people and their produciton, not how much hype they get.

    I understand your point and I am far from a debbie downer but look at the article as a realist.

    Who are our play makers on paper? Going by last years stats the article is 100% accurate. We have nothing. Just accept it for what it is.

    Now on the flip, someone on this team will step up during the season, I have no doubt about that, but if your going to weigh the entire season on Orton and Gafney being the playmakers, its going to be a long year.

    Until proven on the field in an actual game, our rookies mean nothing on paper so the argument that Decker and Thomas are going to be the back bone of this team should be taken with a grain of salt until they actually put some stats up.

    Eddie Royal, maybe? Last year Eddie was the incredible disappearing man. So people who say we still have Eddie are some what correct, Eddie is on the broncos roster, but what did he contribute on offense last year other then a major drop off from his rookie season? Until Eddie steps up and becomes a contributor on offense, he is NOT a play maker on this team.

    Leave a comment:


  • B Real 15
    replied
    I'd say we have no offensive weapons either. I see nothing wrong with the article. Now once someone explodes onto the scene then we can talk but as of now.......we have some good players on offense(skilled positions)but no1 that u know that u have to worry about and that can be good or bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoRyan85
    replied
    Originally posted by AC1 View Post
    IMO Krieger, seemingly the only reasonable football writer at the Post, put together a very solid piece.

    He is speaking specifically about offensive playmakers. In that regard, Moreno is the closest thing we have a to a true playmaker. I would speculate (as Krieger does too) that either Thomas or Decker (or both) could blossom into one, but neither of them have played a single snap yet. Royal IMO is a playmaker, but the head coach and offensive co-ordinator have yet to show that they understand how to use him effectively.

    The McDaniels' fan-brigade is quick to react to anyone who dares question a head coach yet to coach his first playoff game. In this piece however, Krieger examines a specific aspect of one unit of the team. Many here, even those of us expecting the Broncos to make the playoffs, think we will do that on the strength of the defense together with a steady running game beind a strong offensive line. Let's put the pitchforks away.
    I am all for questioning a coach. I just don't feel like this article really needed to be written. So the Broncos lack a true playmaker on offense. Okay. That doesn't mean that they don't have talent on that side of the ball. McDaniels obviously is looking to these guys to step up. They haven't had that chance yet. To me the article just seemed like stating the obvious, and the unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • AC1
    replied
    Originally posted by topscribe View Post
    I will attest that Krieger's writing is often very insightful and worthy of reading
    regularly. Trouble is, he is very opinionated. Now, that makes him very interesting
    as a columnist, but it can also get him into factual binds. This is one of those
    times, IMO. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.


    Woody? As I said elsewhere, he's an idiot, but he's a lovable idiot. Kiszla, on
    the other hand, is just an idiot . . .

    -----
    Agree with everything (especially about Woody) except for the aforementioned disagreement

    Just curious - what parts of the article did you disagree with?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoserman117
    replied
    Oh come on. It's time to let go of the Marshall and Cutler situation. How long is he going to stay pissed about that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky The Sun Devil
    replied
    the cowboys lacked a real wr threat last year according to everyone but miles austin

    Leave a comment:


  • I Eat Staples
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    Actually, I thought the draft was about having a kind of lottery based upon your previous record to get new talent coming into the NFL out of college and having a fair chance to get the best talent available rather than watching the big market clubs with lots of money and the best record attracting all the talent away from the small clubs. Silly me.

    And value is relative. If Tebow busts, it wouldn't matter if he was a second round bust or a third round bust or a first round bust - it's still a pick that didn't pan out, cost the club money and could have been spent on someone who didn't bust (except amazingly, no one has yet come up with a good way to tell in advance who will bust and who won't).

    For example, if Tebow ends up starting next year and takes us to a 13-3 record and the Super Bowl, is he still not worth the value given up for him? Particularly since no one knows if the people we MIGHT have drafted with those picks we traded away would have bust?

    And if the Vikes were targeting Tebow it could possibly be because they don't know if Favre is coming back or not and they don't think Tavaris Jackson can take over the team.

    There are all kinds of possibilities and jumping to conclusions is a sure way to miss the most important ones.

    You remind me of one of my favorite things written by Mark Twain.

    "When I was fourteen, my father knew absolutely nothing. When I was 21, I was astounded at what the old man had learned in just seven years."
    There is no foolproof way to predict future value. The best you can do is gather a rough estimate of where a player will go, and what the "market value" for that player is. For example, Tyson Alaualu (sp?) was taken far earlier than expected. The Jags reached. Even if he becomes a great player, they could have had that great player later on in the draft. If he does become great, will taking him so early be disastrous? Of course not, but it wouldn't maximize the value.

    If you can have a great player in the 2nd round, there's no reason to take him in the 1st. Finding talent from the middle rounds is important, but if you jump at that talent and take it in the early rounds, it completely defeats the purpose of finding good value in the middle rounds.

    Tebow, of all players, is especially a reach. He has a much longer learning curve than most rookie QBs. He's the kind of player you take specifically if he falls into your lap, not the kind of player you trade up for. If he fell to us in the 2nd round, and we took him with one of the back to back 2nd round picks we originally had, it would have been a good pick. A value pick. Because if he busted, he would be one bust of three picks in the top 50. Not bad at all.

    By trading up for Tebow, we set ourselves up for failure if he fails. It's three wasted picks, not just one. Even if another team wanted to trade up and give up those picks, the smart move is to concede and let them have him. If there's a nice car that you like at an auction, but someone else is going to pay an unreasonably high price for it, the smart move is to let them have it. We payed an unreasonably high price for Tebow. If the Bills or Vikings wanted to reach for him and give up too much, we should have let them be the idiots, not stoop to their level and beyond.

    If Tebow fell to us, I would have been happy. We simply gave too much up. It wasn't a value pick. Like you said, you can't guess future value. You don't pay a higher price because of a guess. If Tebow goes on to be a star, it still wasn't a good value pick, because like you said no one knew his future value at the time of the pick. Of course, you won't hear me complaining, because I'll be thrilled to have a star QB no matter how we got him. But hopefully you understand my point.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X