Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The draft we could have had

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by topscribe
    Generally a good post, Cugel. One thing I can appreciate is the time and effort you took to present this. I really mean that. (I say that because the last time I gave such a compliment the recipient took offense--thought I was sarcastic, I guess.) My compliments.

    Just a couple minor comments:

    In your 1999 draft comment, you said, "Olandis Gary did well for a season, but was traded." I would prefer to say that he did well for a season AND was traded. If we trade a player for value, that doesn't constitute a failure, does it? To me, it connoted depth at the position. Moreover, in his four years here, he played mostly behind one Terrell Davis and one Clinton Portis. Not a bad pick for #4, is it? And Al Wilson dramatically made up for the other busts that year, wouldn't you say? To me, those two would raise that year's grade to B-.

    The 2000 draft would qualify for an A-, IMHO. Gold, Kennedy, Carlisle, and Anderson present a good argument for that. We thought O'Neal was a bust, but he has started successfully elsewhere. (Could that have been more like a conflict with a coach or something, rather than bad evaluation of talent?)

    I wouldn't call the 2001 draft a disaster--not the greatest, maybe, but not disaster. Middlebrooks is still here, and he had some good moments last year. Coyer expressed some optimism toward him for this next year. Hamilton and Hayward were very good pickups, especially for #3 and #4, respectively. C+ (subject to B- if Middlebrooks picks it up this year).

    2002, B+. Lelie, Portis, and Putzier? You're kidding of course. Superb additions. Davis, Brandon, Young, and Pope haven't set the world afire yet, but they are good enough to still be with us. Only Haygood is gone from your list.

    2003, C+. Foster was a hit there, and then some. To me, what Gold's signing says about Pierce is that Gold is a proven Pro-Bowler, too good to pass up, and quality depth becomes thin behind Pierce. As he did last year, Pierce will get his minutes. Galloway's exit did not mean he was necessarily bad; it just meant there was a logjam at RB at the time. Same for Griffin if he goes; he will catch on with another team. But he is not gone, yet, and they still have a high opinion of him for what he can do. Madise is gone, but, again, I suspect that was due to a glut of good young WRs. The others, yes, the staff did fall flat on their faces, but the hits were pretty good hits, don't you think?

    2004: Too early, agreed. Regarding your comment on Watts, however, rookies drop passes; that's just what they do. If he can hang onto them this year, then he wasn't so much of a reach, was he? LeSueur, Sewell, and Luke still show promise. The QBs, BVP and Mauck, were 7th round picks, where a candidate may or may not make it. A "bust" there does not necessarily constitute a busted draft, does it? After all, as you implied, D.J. Williams was a steal, even for a #1.

    Going back to 1998, that was ugly, wasn't it? Regarding Griese, however, he did do a pretty fair job for three years, including his Pro-Bowl appearance in 2000. So I would not attribute that to bad evaluation of talent; something happened to Griese afterward that reversed what everyone initially saw in him. (That's still somewhat of a heartbreaker, in my mind.)

    As I said, you made some cogent points. While I don't severely disagree with you, I do believe it is not quite as bad as your picture.
    I highlited some points you made.

    delta a bust, a one year wonder that was made be trent green. The only reason he made it to the probowl, I hope he took trent along as a guest.

    middlebroke had his moments? Is that all that we expect from a first round DAFT choice? Same goes for pierce as a #2.

    Here is were I differ from the rest, I expect my #1 for sure to be starter materail the year we draft them if not by the next year at the latest.


    If they can't start why waste the choice on them there is always some position that needs to be upgraded, or at the least major backups for the all pros we have. If our entire squad was all pro I'd say start drafting back ups, but they are not.


    ABout madise and galloway there was indeed a glut, but had they performed more WR's and Rbs would not have been brought on board to make the "glut". More choices could have been made in other areas such as DL where we have sucked since getting a converted LB in 97.

    None of the above choices are that quality material!

    While everyone here is gaga about asshley, I felt it should not have taken 3 years to become the #2 receiver that everyone thinks he is.

    The whole point is while Mikey hits paydirt every so often, he also really stretches to get to some of them.

    His DAFTING over the years has not been above average. I'd say c on most of the drafts at best.

    I guess that just because someone is talented does not mean they CAN perform at NFL levels. Every once in a while a Rod Smith pops up, a hard workin SOB that puts an asshley to shame.
    Last edited by JRWIZ; 05-02-2005, 02:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Jrhampton
      I highlited some points you made.

      delta a bust, a one year wonder that was made be trent green. The only reason he made it to the probowl, I hope he took trent along as a guest.

      middlebroke had his moments? Is that all that we expect from a first round DAFT choice? Same goes for pierce as a #2.

      Here is were I differ from the rest, I expect my #1 for sure to be starter materail the year we draft them if not by the next year at the latest.


      If they can't start why waste the choice on them there is always some position that needs to be upgraded, or at the least major backups for the all pros we have. If our entire squad was all pro I'd say start drafting back ups, but they are not.


      ABout madise and galloway there was indeed a glut, but had they performed more WR's and Rbs would not have been brought on board to make the "glut". More choices could have been made in other areas such as DL where we have sucked since getting a converted LB in 97.

      None of the above choices are that quality material!

      While everyone here is gaga about asshley, I felt it should not have taken 3 years to become the #2 receiver that everyone thinks he is.

      The whole point is while Mikey hits paydirt every so often, he also really stretches to get to some of them.

      His DAFTING over the years has not been above average. I'd say c on most of the drafts at best.

      I guess that just because someone is talented does not mean they CAN perform at NFL levels. Every once in a while a Rod Smith pops up, a hard workin SOB that puts an asshley to shame.
      Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the Broncos' drafts were above average, JR. Actually, I don't even think my grades reflect outstanding performances. I don't think we're all that far apart. Just as you, I am not satisfied. I was only trying to convey what in my mind is a more realistic picture, IMHO. However, I am with you and Cugel in that Shanny really needs help in that one area. Just think of the juggernaut we would have if just one more player per draft panned out.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by topscribe
        Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the Broncos' drafts were above average, JR. Actually, I don't even think my grades reflect outstanding performances. I don't think we're all that far apart. Just as you, I am not satisfied. I was only trying to convey what in my mind is a more realistic picture, IMHO. However, I am with you and Cugel in that Shanny really needs help in that one area. Just think of the juggernaut we would have if just one more player per draft panned out.

        Atleast Shanahan keeps the team in realistic contention every year.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BroncoStampede
          Atleast Shanahan keeps the team in realistic contention every year.

          But he is doing it with coaching not by GM'ing it.

          But had he gotten some quality folks would we have been in contention and getting past the first round of the playoffs?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by topscribe
            Generally a good post, Cugel. One thing I can appreciate is the time and effort you took to present this. I really mean that. (I say that because the last time I gave such a compliment the recipient took offense--thought I was sarcastic, I guess.) My compliments.

            Just a couple minor comments:

            In your 1999 draft comment, you said, "Olandis Gary did well for a season, but was traded." I would prefer to say that he did well for a season AND was traded. If we trade a player for value, that doesn't constitute a failure, does it? To me, it connoted depth at the position. Moreover, in his four years here, he played mostly behind one Terrell Davis and one Clinton Portis. Not a bad pick for #4, is it? And Al Wilson dramatically made up for the other busts that year, wouldn't you say? To me, those two would raise that year's grade to B-.

            The 2000 draft would qualify for an A-, IMHO. Gold, Kennedy, Carlisle, and Anderson present a good argument for that. We thought O'Neal was a bust, but he has started successfully elsewhere. (Could that have been more like a conflict with a coach or something, rather than bad evaluation of talent?)

            I wouldn't call the 2001 draft a disaster--not the greatest, maybe, but not disaster. Middlebrooks is still here, and he had some good moments last year. Coyer expressed some optimism toward him for this next year. Hamilton and Hayward were very good pickups, especially for #3 and #4, respectively. C+ (subject to B- if Middlebrooks picks it up this year).

            2002, B+. Lelie, Portis, and Putzier? You're kidding of course. Superb additions. Davis, Brandon, Young, and Pope haven't set the world afire yet, but they are good enough to still be with us. Only Haygood is gone from your list.

            2003, C+. Foster was a hit there, and then some. To me, what Gold's signing says about Pierce is that Gold is a proven Pro-Bowler, too good to pass up, and quality depth becomes thin behind Pierce. As he did last year, Pierce will get his minutes. Galloway's exit did not mean he was necessarily bad; it just meant there was a logjam at RB at the time. Same for Griffin if he goes; he will catch on with another team. But he is not gone, yet, and they still have a high opinion of him for what he can do. Madise is gone, but, again, I suspect that was due to a glut of good young WRs. The others, yes, the staff did fall flat on their faces, but the hits were pretty good hits, don't you think?

            2004: Too early, agreed. Regarding your comment on Watts, however, rookies drop passes; that's just what they do. If he can hang onto them this year, then he wasn't so much of a reach, was he? LeSueur, Sewell, and Luke still show promise. The QBs, BVP and Mauck, were 7th round picks, where a candidate may or may not make it. A "bust" there does not necessarily constitute a busted draft, does it? After all, as you implied, D.J. Williams was a steal, even for a #1.

            Going back to 1998, that was ugly, wasn't it? Regarding Griese, however, he did do a pretty fair job for three years, including his Pro-Bowl appearance in 2000. So I would not attribute that to bad evaluation of talent; something happened to Griese afterward that reversed what everyone initially saw in him. (That's still somewhat of a heartbreaker, in my mind.)

            As I said, you made some cogent points. While I don't severely disagree with you, I do believe it is not quite as bad as your picture.
            I think you're being MUCH too generous! Notice how many picks from later rounds never even made the team or sat around on the bench for a few years before departing for another set of scrubs.

            You can't completely tell about the 2002-2005 drafts yet, but so far it doesn't look good. In fact it looks about as bad as it reasonably could! As I review it, I think I was being too generous and bending over backwards to give the team the benefit of the doubt!

            For example, take a look at 2003. The Broncos had 10 draft picks! But look at what Shanahan got!: #1 George Foster RT, starter; #2 Terry Pierce, LB, little used backup, he COULD theoretically eventually justify the pick, but right now it doesn't look probable; Quentin Griffin, RB (4th), he could be a backup or he could be gone this year.

            Now look at the other 7 picks!
            4 114 Nick Eason DT - GONE!
            4 128 Bryant McNeal DE - GONE!
            5 157 Ben Claxton C- GONE!
            5 158 Adrian Madise WR- GONE!
            6 194 Aaron Hunt DE - GONE!
            7 227 Clint Mitchell DE - GONE!
            7 235 Ahmaad Galloway RB - GONE!

            So, we've got 1 starter, 2 "maybe they'll get better", and 7 total busts?
            At BEST it will be 3/10 useful players from that entire draft! That's horrible, just to start with! And it could get worse if Q and Pierce DON'T produce this year and are cut next year (a real possibility)!

            To make matters worse, remember that teams generally KEEP their top picks around for a few years even if they never produce, just to play special teams and in the hopes that they will develop. Partly that's for salary cap reasons, you just can't rely on veterans for everything, it costs too much, and partly it's human nature not to admit you've made a mistake unless you absolutely have to.

            So, for Shanahan to dump 7 out of 10 picks from the 2003 draft already shows they were complete flops.

            Don't bother to justify it by saying some might have caught on with other teams or that 3 out of 10 is OK. If only 1 guy is any good at all and that guy was a #1 pick and the rest suck or are mediocre at best, that that's just plain rotten drafting!

            Out of all those guys who were cut, only McNeil and Eason are still in the NFL at all after 2 seasons and they had a combined 1 tackle last year.

            The Broncos drafts have been just bad no matter how you look at it. If you doubt me go to NFL.com and look at the Patriots draft history. See how many starters and backups on that team are Patriots draft picks!

            You can't build a championship through FA any more! Shanahan did it in the 90's but that was when FA was in its infancy and not every team participated. Now the draft is absoulely KEY.

            But Shanahan has been very slow to learn that lesson and STILL this year is relying on FA pickups to save his season (DL for instance).

            If your drafting sucks, and Shanahan's drafting has flat sucked the past 5 years, you're flat not going to win any championships!
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #66
              Well, Cugel, you think I'm overly generous, and I think you are a little too pessimistic. We both agree, however, that changes should be made in the system because it indeed is not producing as it should. So, in the end, we're on the same side on that issue.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by mr williams52
                here is the draft that the broncos should have had today with everyone that was available with our picks

                # 56- vincent jackson

                # 76- evin mathis

                # 97- chris canty

                # 101- ciatrick fason
                yes..that would have been a good draft....o well
                Go Broncos, Lakers, Angels!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Bellthebest
                  # 56- vincent jackson

                  # 76- evin mathis

                  # 97- chris canty

                  # 101- ciatrick fason
                  yes..that would have been a good draft....o well
                  I think Shanahan pretty much admitted that Vincent Jackson was a guy they considered in the 2nd round. He said that there were receivers in the 2nd who he felt could have made the team better, but not after that round. The more I think about that, the less I like the fact that he was grabbed by the Chargers.

                  And he said that he just felt that adding a return specialist and nickel CB was a more important need.

                  Perhaps so, but that does NOT reflect well on his drafting in recent years. Kick returner and special teams players generally are NOT the most prominent needs a team addresses in the 2nd round of a draft!

                  At least not the good drafting teams!
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Cugel
                    I think Shanahan pretty much admitted that Vincent Jackson was a guy they considered in the 2nd round. He said that there were receivers in the 2nd who he felt could have made the team better, but not after that round. The more I think about that, the less I like the fact that he was grabbed by the Chargers.

                    And he said that he just felt that adding a return specialist and nickel CB was a more important need.

                    Perhaps so, but that does NOT reflect well on his drafting in recent years. Kick returner and special teams players generally are NOT the most prominent needs a team addresses in the 2nd round of a draft!

                    At least not the good drafting teams!

                    Once again on the mark.

                    I refer to Mikey’s player acquisitions as DAFTING, seems to be the appropriate term.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Jrhampton
                      I[B]Here is were I differ from the rest, I expect my #1 for sure to be starter materail the year we draft them if not by the next year at the latest.


                      If they can't start why waste the choice on them there is always some position that needs to be upgraded, or at the least major backups for the all pros we have. If our entire squad was all pro I'd say start drafting back ups, but they are not.
                      This again show what you don't know about drafting Jr. The top 15 are expected to be impact players that can start right away. 16-32 although they may have the talent of a number one are not necessarily going make an impact right away.
                      John 11: 25-27

                      My Adopt-A-Bronco is D.J. Williams



                      Thanks Snk16

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by TXBRONC
                        This again show what you don't know about drafting Jr. The top 15 are expected to be impact players that can start right away. 16-32 although they may have the talent of a number one are not necessarily going make an impact right away.

                        Not sure why you have a hardon for me, but going back 9 days and picking out part of a quote to comment on seems to me over the top.

                        I disagree with your assement pracitcally anyone in the first round should be starter material unless of course you chosing perhaps the 4th CB or LB or Ot in the draft.

                        There are 13 true positions if you don't count NT or Kickers, that 32 teams to chose from. In most cases your able to pick up one of the top 2 maybe 3 best talents at any of the positions being looked at. The number two QB did not go this year until #25.

                        For example this years draft,

                        QB-1-25-26
                        RB-2-4-5
                        OC-27
                        OG-32
                        OT-13-19
                        WR-3-7-10-21-22-27
                        TE-30

                        DE-11-17-18-20
                        DT-16-28-31
                        MLB-none
                        OLB-12-15
                        SS-none
                        FS-14
                        CB-6-8-9-23-24-29

                        Now considering that the
                        QB's two were selected after the magical #16
                        center, OG, 1 OT, 3 WR's, TE, 3 DE's, all three DT's, 1 OLB, and 3 CB's

                        You don't feel that any of these have the chance to start this year?

                        NO MLB were chosen nor SS.

                        http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/round/round1

                        If we can't find starters in the first round let alone the top three rounds then we should not be drafting anyone.

                        They are the top 100 ahtletes in coming out of college. There has to be some spot on the team that we do not have a top 100 athlete starting on the squad.

                        We filled a need in 2004 with DJ and Tater and Watts it has not happened like that in years.

                        65% of our team are someone elses castoff's. I don't think that we do such a hot job in scouting or better yet believing what the scouts have to say.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jrhampton
                          Not sure why you have a hardon for me, but going back 9 days and picking out part of a quote to comment on seems to me over the top.

                          I disagree with your assement pracitcally anyone in the first round should be starter material unless of course you chosing perhaps the 4th CB or LB or Ot in the draft.

                          There are 13 true positions if you don't count NT or Kickers, that 32 teams to chose from. In most cases your able to pick up one of the top 2 maybe 3 best talents at any of the positions being looked at. The number two QB did not go this year until #25.

                          For example this years draft,

                          QB-1-25-26
                          RB-2-4-5
                          OC-27
                          OG-32
                          OT-13-19
                          WR-3-7-10-21-22-27
                          TE-30

                          DE-11-17-18-20
                          DT-16-28-31
                          MLB-none
                          OLB-12-15
                          SS-none
                          FS-14
                          CB-6-8-9-23-24-29

                          Now considering that the
                          QB's two were selected after the magical #16
                          center, OG, 1 OT, 3 WR's, TE, 3 DE's, all three DT's, 1 OLB, and 3 CB's

                          You don't feel that any of these have the chance to start this year?

                          NO MLB were chosen nor SS.

                          http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/round/round1

                          If we can't find starters in the first round let alone the top three rounds then we should not be drafting anyone.

                          They are the top 100 ahtletes in coming out of college. There has to be some spot on the team that we do not have a top 100 athlete starting on the squad.

                          We filled a need in 2004 with DJ and Tater and Watts it has not happened like that in years.

                          65% of our team are someone elses castoff's. I don't think that we do such a hot job in scouting or better yet believing what the scouts have to say.
                          This is a very interesting analysis!

                          But I don't believe that the top draft picks necessarily would be able to start as rookies. That depends upon position, and team. Leaving aside QB's (who always take a few years -- Ben Roethlisberger excepted), WR's and OT sometimes take 2-3 years. Shanahan said as much in evaluating the necessity for Lelie to step up in performance last season (his 3rd full season in the NFL). He said that normally WRs take about 2-3 years to become starters and that Lelie needed to show his ability in 2004.

                          The same goes for OL. It not only takes time to learn proper blocking techniques, and it takes time to learn to play with your linemates (especially in a system like Denver's). You would not expect a draft pick to be a starter before his 2nd year and probably at least 3rd year for LT. Foster started in his 2nd year and did pretty well at RT. That's about the best you can expect.

                          Absolutely without a doubt you are right that a team's top draft pick SHOULD be able to start by year 3 at the most. If he can't make it by that point, he's a bust!

                          But Darrent Williams will NEVER start! He will be a nickel CB at best his whole career because he's too short! GM Ted Sundquist has as much as admitted this already, when he said that Paymah and Foxworth were drafted to compete to ultimately replace Lennie Walls opposite Champ Bailey, while Williams was drafted to return punts and kickoffs and because he could ultimately be good as the #3 CB in nickel coverage.

                          At the time I wondered why Willie Middlebrooks wasn't mentioned by Sundquist as a possible replacement for Walls (when he becomes a FA next year). After all the coaches were finally happy with his play before he was injured last year.

                          Then I found out that not only is Middlebrooks a FA next year, he's represented by Drew Rosenhaus (along with Walls).

                          Can you say "bye-bye"?! Rosenhaus will make some outrageous salary demand that the Broncos won't want to meet and both those guys will be gone as FA in 2006!
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Justin Miller THEN Darrent Williams then Jerome Mathis then Darren Sproles


                            Made by Snk16

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Cugel
                              This is a very interesting analysis!

                              But I don't believe that the top draft picks necessarily would be able to start as rookies. That depends upon position, and team. Leaving aside QB's (who always take a few years -- Ben Roethlisberger excepted), WR's and OT sometimes take 2-3 years. Shanahan said as much in evaluating the necessity for Lelie to step up in performance last season (his 3rd full season in the NFL). He said that normally WRs take about 2-3 years to become starters and that Lelie needed to show his ability in 2004.

                              The same goes for OL. It not only takes time to learn proper blocking techniques, and it takes time to learn to play with your linemates (especially in a system like Denver's). You would not expect a draft pick to be a starter before his 2nd year and probably at least 3rd year for LT. Foster started in his 2nd year and did pretty well at RT. That's about the best you can expect.

                              Absolutely without a doubt you are right that a team's top draft pick SHOULD be able to start by year 3 at the most. If he can't make it by that point, he's a bust!

                              But Darrent Williams will NEVER start! He will be a nickel CB at best his whole career because he's too short! GM Ted Sundquist has as much as admitted this already, when he said that Paymah and Foxworth were drafted to compete to ultimately replace Lennie Walls opposite Champ Bailey, while Williams was drafted to return punts and kickoffs and because he could ultimately be good as the #3 CB in nickel coverage.

                              At the time I wondered why Willie Middlebrooks wasn't mentioned by Sundquist as a possible replacement for Walls (when he becomes a FA next year). After all the coaches were finally happy with his play before he was injured last year.

                              Then I found out that not only is Middlebrooks a FA next year, he's represented by Drew Rosenhaus (along with Walls).

                              Can you say "bye-bye"?! Rosenhaus will make some outrageous salary demand that the Broncos won't want to meet and both those guys will be gone as FA in 2006!
                              Thanks for your thoughts, I might add about Drew R, I think that he may has stepped on his crank in the TO deal, perhaps some of his players may bolt if TO winds up setting out. May figure out that he id not looking after the best interests of the player.

                              While it may take awhile to learn a position if you are one of the top 100 players in the nation you should have amuch better chance of stepping into a starting role than someone Drafted on the second day. That is of course if MIkey has ot really stretched for him.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Jrhampton
                                Not sure why you have a hardon for me, but going back 9 days and picking out part of a quote to comment on seems to me over the top.

                                I disagree with your assement pracitcally anyone in the first round should be starter material unless of course you chosing perhaps the 4th CB or LB or Ot in the draft.

                                There are 13 true positions if you don't count NT or Kickers, that 32 teams to chose from. In most cases your able to pick up one of the top 2 maybe 3 best talents at any of the positions being looked at. The number two QB did not go this year until #25.

                                For example this years draft,

                                QB-1-25-26
                                RB-2-4-5
                                OC-27
                                OG-32
                                OT-13-19
                                WR-3-7-10-21-22-27
                                TE-30

                                DE-11-17-18-20
                                DT-16-28-31
                                MLB-none
                                OLB-12-15
                                SS-none
                                FS-14
                                CB-6-8-9-23-24-29

                                Now considering that the
                                QB's two were selected after the magical #16
                                center, OG, 1 OT, 3 WR's, TE, 3 DE's, all three DT's, 1 OLB, and 3 CB's

                                You don't feel that any of these have the chance to start this year?

                                NO MLB were chosen nor SS.

                                http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/round/round1

                                If we can't find starters in the first round let alone the top three rounds then we should not be drafting anyone.

                                They are the top 100 ahtletes in coming out of college. There has to be some spot on the team that we do not have a top 100 athlete starting on the squad.

                                We filled a need in 2004 with DJ and Tater and Watts it has not happened like that in years.

                                65% of our team are someone elses castoff's. I don't think that we do such a hot job in scouting or better yet believing what the scouts have to say.

                                Again this is where you are very much mistaken. picks 16-32 do not necessarily make an impact right away. I understand you want to believe they do but its simply not true all you have to do is look at draft history to understand this. Btw with you constant use of sexual verbage maybe you need to talk to sex therapist.
                                John 11: 25-27

                                My Adopt-A-Bronco is D.J. Williams



                                Thanks Snk16

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X