Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moulds's Molding into Moldy Mold

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

  • sbutk
    replied
    Originally posted by MilitantDBFan
    Trade For Molds:

    Broncos Trade 22nd Overall Pick, 5th Round Pick and a Future 2nd Round Pick in 2007 Draft to Buffalo for Eric Moulds, 2006 2nd Round Pick(42), and two 3rd Rd Picks(70 and 73)

    Draft

    1st Rd - Lendale White - RB, USC
    2nd(A) - Marcedes Lewis - TE, UCLA
    2nd(B) - Darryl Tapp - DE, Virginia Tech
    3rd(A) - Jesse Mahelona - DT, Tennessee
    3rd(B) - Devin Hester - DB/KR - Miami
    3rd Comp Pick - Brandon Marshall - WR, UCF
    4th(A) - Babatunde Oshinowo - DT, Stanford
    4th(B) - Lawrence Vickers - FB, Colorado
    6th - Jeremey Bloom - WR/KR, Colorado

    Broncos add to the overall talent of the team. They slide out of the first round saving money and add quality depth. Pick twice in each of the 3 early mid rounds. Trading to the top of the 2nd ensures them a shot at an solid prospect at tightend and a pass rushing end at the bottom of the 2nd.

    I think I would be in Heaven if we managed to accomplish all that.

    Leave a comment:


  • sbutk
    replied
    Originally posted by Javalon
    That's true, we might already have our solution at wide receiver. But I don't believe the Broncos can count on that. And that's why trading for Moulds or using a first rounder is appealing to many of us.

    My preference would be to acquire Moulds. I'm not sure that any of the top receivers in this year's draft qualify as the "sure thing" that would be worthy of first round picks. (And I know others on here disagree with that assessment. Just stating my opinion.)

    Either way, I still think it needs to be addressed. If we acquired Moulds and then Terrell came on, we'd at least have quality depth for a while.


    Oh, I agree 100% (Should've put more emphasis on the word might.) I know we can't with 100% confidence rely on Terrell, and most definitely not in the near near future. I'm all in favor of getting Moulds if we can.


    Last edited by sbutk; 03-26-2006, 02:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • champbronc2
    replied
    I like this idea as long as he doesn't get THAT MUCH MONEY!

    Since I've seen him as a potential FA I've been interested with him. I still think he has enough left in the tank to go a few more good years.

    If we got Moulds then we could keep him a few years and deal with our depth situation as well for now and have time ofr the future. For the right price I say we take him.

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    Originally posted by broncs2bowl
    Why wont anyone reply to the moulds stuff. This is the most exiting page

    well. . . there ARE 5 pages worth of responses. . .



    and welcome to the board!

    Leave a comment:


  • ManoRodriquez
    replied
    Originally posted by broncs2bowl
    Why wont anyone reply to the moulds stuff. This is the most exiting page

    they are

    Leave a comment:


  • broncs2bowl
    replied
    Why wont anyone reply to the moulds stuff. This is the most exiting page

    Leave a comment:


  • broncs2bowl
    replied
    I want Moulds

    If the Broncos get Moulds that would be great. He would be a great second option for Jake and possibly 1st. But i would rather havve Rod at 1st. He is a playermaker that is not like TO even though he has some problems. The only thing wrong with him is he is getting a little old

    Leave a comment:


  • ydave77
    replied
    Originally posted by dogfish
    not a bad point-- but honestly, there's no reason the roles would have to be that rigidly defined, considering how many different packages and formations a pro team runs. . . he could easily share the #2 duties with lelie, depending on formation, play call and down-and-distance. . . i would expect either moulds or rod to work out of the slot in 3 WR sets. . .

    but unfortunately i agree with you that he won't be cheap, although i think if we can afford it he would be worth it-- especially (said with fingers crossed) if one of our top two guys were to get hurt. . .
    Thats true, we could also throw in some 3 WR sets obvoiusly, and Moulds I think woudl be in on most 3rd down and 8 or shorter type packages over Lelie. So in that respect Moulds would help. But yh the problem is he is going to get paid too much for that kinda role, where he would be a 2(B) option. Hopefully David Terell can step into that kind of role for us. Not sure, but hey its probably a better chance than Duke being a savior that many of us are hoping for this yr.

    Leave a comment:


  • DURANGO BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by Vicious2500

    Wow... Lelie is the deep threat that stretches the field and he's the best in the league at it by once again leading the league in YPC (2 yrs and running). He was also covered by teams best cover corner not Rod Smith this year. So to say Lelie doesn't stretch the field is beyond me.

    What we need is another possesion WR not another Deep Threat, if we wanted another deep threat we would've kept Trandios Luke last year instead of Nate Jackson and company. With the lost of Putizer we lost Plummers safety value outside of Rod Smith. So in essence we need a new TE and a possesion WR (preterably at lest 6'2).
    Spot on observations.

    Leave a comment:


  • ydave77
    replied
    Originally posted by vicious2500
    Wow... Lelie is the deep threat that stretches the field and he's the best in the league at it by once again leading the league in YPC (2 yrs and running). He was also covered by teams best cover corner not Rod Smith this year. So to say Lelie doesn't stretch the field is beyond me.

    What we need is another possesion WR not another Deep Threat, if we wanted another deep threat we would've kept Trandios Luke last year instead of Nate Jackson and company. With the lost of Putizer we lost Plummers safety value outside of Rod Smith. So in essence we need a new TE and a possesion WR (preterably at lest 6'2).

    Haha its English buddy, learn it. Kidding. But in all seriousness thats my point, if you read it again, Lelie IS a great deep threat, so we woudnt want to take him off the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • vicious2500
    replied
    Originally posted by ydave77
    Where does Mould's fit in for us at this point? I wouldnt mind getting either a star, or an avg player for depth, but I feel like Moulds will cost alot and be in no man's land. Are we going to bump Rod from starting....No. Should we bump Lelie....I dont hink so, I think we need a deep threat to stretch the field, not sure if Moulds still has that type of speed. So can we pay Moulds the money he wants to be a #3, tough call. He woudl be a fantastic #3, and if he got paid like a #3 I would love to have him. But it looks like a few teams are interested in him, which means his price wont be cheap.
    Wow... Lelie is the deep threat that stretches the field and he's the best in the league at it by once again leading the league in YPC (2 yrs and running). He was also covered by teams best cover corner not Rod Smith this year. So to say Lelie doesn't stretch the field is beyond me.

    What we need is another possesion WR not another Deep Threat, if we wanted another deep threat we would've kept Trandios Luke last year instead of Nate Jackson and company. With the lost of Putizer we lost Plummers safety value outside of Rod Smith. So in essence we need a new TE and a possesion WR (preterably at lest 6'2).

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    Originally posted by ydave77
    Where does Mould's fit in for us at this point? I wouldnt mind getting either a star, or an avg player for depth, but I feel like Moulds will cost alot and be in no man's land. Are we going to bump Rod from starting....No. Should we bump Lelie....I dont hink so, I think we need a deep threat to stretch the field, not sure if Moulds still has that type of speed. So can we pay Moulds the money he wants to be a #3, tough call. He woudl be a fantastic #3, and if he got paid like a #3 I would love to have him. But it looks like a few teams are interested in him, which means his price wont be cheap.

    not a bad point-- but honestly, there's no reason the roles would have to be that rigidly defined, considering how many different packages and formations a pro team runs. . . he could easily share the #2 duties with lelie, depending on formation, play call and down-and-distance. . . i would expect either moulds or rod to work out of the slot in 3 WR sets. . .

    but unfortunately i agree with you that he won't be cheap, although i think if we can afford it he would be worth it-- especially (said with fingers crossed) if one of our top two guys were to get hurt. . .

    Leave a comment:


  • ydave77
    replied
    Where does Mould's fit in for us at this point? I wouldnt mind getting either a star, or an avg player for depth, but I feel like Moulds will cost alot and be in no man's land. Are we going to bump Rod from starting....No. Should we bump Lelie....I dont hink so, I think we need a deep threat to stretch the field, not sure if Moulds still has that type of speed. So can we pay Moulds the money he wants to be a #3, tough call. He woudl be a fantastic #3, and if he got paid like a #3 I would love to have him. But it looks like a few teams are interested in him, which means his price wont be cheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • ManoRodriquez
    replied
    Originally posted by Momentum
    True. If he comes cheaply (as far as the trade and cap) Id support him. We still need youth at WR though.
    We have Youth at WR ... I haven't seen any cuts ther either, the way it looks Shan believe we have potential at the position ... but I do understand they didnt put out the numbers we all hoped for. that said, I'm sure Shan will draft a WR in the later rounds imo ... might even bring in a vet WR like Moulds ... he will address the needs wher he cut players like RB, DE/DT, and TE ... Also, we can look after the draft for signings too ... I'm sure u will see a lot of ppl cut after draft and training camp that Denver can sign ... We have the potential at WideOut and with another yr they might start producing ... Rod just didn't come out of College and start putting up Hall-of-Fame Numbers did he ? No it took him time to adjust to the speed of the NFL

    Just my two cents and opinion

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    Originally posted by Momentum
    True. If he comes cheaply (as far as the trade and cap) Id support him. We still need youth at WR though.

    i agree that we need youth at WR-- i'm just not sold on spending a 1st this year to get it. i'm not convinced that holmes or jackson can live up to the #15 pick, but i think we'll have to spend it if we want one of them. . . i honestly see better value with a lower round WR like hass, jason avant, bouknight, david anderson etc. . . none of them will ever be an explosive #1, but i honestly think if we re-sign lelie our top priority should be finding a reliable possesion receiver who can do what rod does now after he retires, and that's move the chains and be consistent. . .

    i'm also interested to see if dinger can make anything out of what we already have on the roster, though i'm not overly optimistic there. . .

    but given the learning curve for WRs and the window we have right now, i'd rather see us spend out 1st rounders on a DE or DT, possibly a star RB-- someone who can contribute now and is just as good a prospect down the road as holmes or jackson. . .

    that's why i'm interested in moulds, or any decent WR that's cut in june-- a vet can come in and help us now, and allow us to spend our top draft picks on other needs where this draft is stronger. . . and wait 'til next year to go after our future #1 WR. . .

    in any case, i suspect that moulds will be out of our price range, but i'll hold out at least a little hope until he officialy ends up somewhere else. . .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X