Killer mock, but not too likely

[Jack-o-Lantern]

That is a poorous argument Lantern, but I was hoping that you would find the truth of it...You do have an argument, but you have not stated it yet, but Mitch King is not 6-2, but I will give you a hint, the weight is right...but there is more, because he is not 6-1 either. Even at 6-2 your argument is mute...

A) Rams do not run a 3-4, so that is idiotic to even put down, they are a hybrid defense, but their base is the 4-3.

B) McDonald and Castillo are far better used in your argument, but then again they have the weight needed to succeed. But of those in the league you gave me defensive ends different in size most of all that are do not compare to Mitch Kings.

C) Mitch King could be 290lbs. it does not mean that he is a good fit for the 3-4, height/weight ratio is still a factor, knowledge of his real size would have helped your argument but then again you argued ridiculous and stupidly with not a damn sound fact. Less then a quarter of successful 3-4 defensive ends are below 6-4 (Fact), most weight close to 300lbs. give five pounds either way (Fact), Iowa is a 4-3 based defense (Fact)...not one damn thing about Mitch King screams that he is a good fit for a 3-4 defense (Fact). Best 3-4 defensive end in free agency is Canty? Arguable I suppose but most would agree...lol. Chris Canty is 6-7, 300lbs. (Fact)...the best 3-4 defensive ends in the business are closer to the size of Canty then Castillo (Fact).

Funny but San Diego and even though good are not the best 3-4 defense, and I do not think Castillo is a good end to use or camparable...what the hell has he done?, compare King to the likes of those who play for Baltimore, Pittsburgh and New England, not San Francisco and San Fuego...

Lesson learned....

[lancane]

I can't agree with you there Cane, imo, there is no better time to switch to a 3-4 because the Broncos have one (maybe two) players on the front seven that should be starting in either scheme.

Williams and maybe Thomas, the rest are completely insignificant.

Woodyard belongs in a Tampa2 and I'm not so sure the rest of the league thinks he's as good as Broncos fans do.

Winborn and Larsen are STer's not starters, Boss Bailey is a China Doll and cannot/should not be counted on.

Robertson is a wave player who is on borrowed time and will probably be released. Moss/Crowder have potential in a 3-4 but cannot/should not be counted on. Peterson could be useful in a 3-4, but he's not a starter.

3-4 or 4-3.......the Broncos have next to nothing, the cupboard is almost completely bare.......

I agree it is the time now rather then later to switch...if we are going to. But not about the roster, we are far more set to be a 4-3 IMHO. But that does not mean I am arguing not to switch, but I will say that we could stay with the 4-3 and it would not surprise me, that is all.

[lancane]

But what worries me.. is that both Crennell and Mangini have tried to move their teams to a 3-4 when their team was originally a 4-3... both failed. Its NOT easy to move to the 3-4... and I think we need to draft/get players that can play in both systems so that we make a slow transition.

That is why if Denver fans expect a great 3-4 out of the gates, they will be in for dissapointment.

[lancane]

Lesson learned....

Don't be sullen JL, if we were sticking to the 4-3 I would be promoting Mitch King to be drafted, his ability and raw talent, even great upside...he would be idea fit for the 4-3!


By the way, King is actually according to his physical chart at Iowa 6-3, 279lbs. that was the argument I was waiting for you to make. But if I remember he was measured at 6-2, 280lbs. at the Senior Bowl. the combine could be more telling, but I bet he is higher end 6-2...still my argument stands. And as I said, if we stick to the 4-3, Mitch King becomes a huge option.

[stnzed]

I agree it is the time now rather then later to switch...if we are going to. But not about the roster, we are far more set to be a 4-3 IMHO. But that does not mean I am arguing not to switch, but I will say that we could stay with the 4-3 and it would not surprise me, that is all.

Maybe I'm just too eager to see these current players gone, even if they stayed with the 4-3 (Which suits me fine) I think they need massive upgrades across the board.

Right here right now, I'm hoping everybody except Williams, Peterson and Thomas (and MAYBE Moss/Crowder/Larsen) are no longer with the team in a year or two. As much as I criticize players, I try not to get into "This guy has got to go" or "That should be cut" too much.......but I am eagerly anticipating much of these players leaving. Maybe that's why I'm excited for a 34 for the first time ever, I've never been a big fan.

I'm curious to know who you consider worthwhile (As starters) in staying with the 43.......

[lancane]

Maybe I'm just too eager to see these current players gone, even if they stayed with the 4-3 (Which suits me fine) I think they need massive upgrades across the board.

Right here right now, I'm hoping everybody except Williams, Peterson and Thomas (and MAYBE Moss/Crowder/Larsen) are no longer with the team in a year or two. As much as I criticize players, I try not to get into "This guy has got to go" or "That should be cut" too much.......but I am eagerly anticipating much of these players leaving. Maybe that's why I'm excited for a 34 for the first time ever, I've never been a big fan.

I'm curious to know who you consider worthwhile (As starters) in staying with the 43.......

Well, I think alot of what you feel is just frustration to be honest. If the defense had been 20th overall, then you would be saying keep this kid and that kid, but with the sorry stats and output this past year, most fans are speaking from frustration. And I understand, but in truth it would be easier to put a capable 4-3 unit on the field then a 3-4. If we go to the 3-4, I expect a lot more of these kids to be gone in a year or so then you may think.

If we stick to the 4-3, you keep everybody...it is the additions that will make or break the defensive unit.

So let's examine the 3-4, if we switch we need a nose tackle, that could be difficult, we need two true 3-4 defensive ends...I think Thomas and Peterson could be fill-ins, but they are not true 3-4 ends, not like Olshansky, Canty and so forth. We need to fill more linebacker positions then we currently would need to and then safety. That is a large grocery list. What do we need if we stick to the 4-3? Two safeties, a solid defensive tackle and defensive end, far less to fill as far as positions. Part of the problem is the scheme and coaching as well, I think we have alot of upside with this roster as is...but we need some dominant players. Where if we go 3-4 we will be looking for what is more or less all positions besides one linebacker spot and both corner positions, that could be huge in the end.

[Mat'hir Uth Gan]

Don't be sullen JL, if we were sticking to the 4-3 I would be promoting Mitch King to be drafted, his ability and raw talent, even great upside...he would be idea fit for the 4-3!


By the way, King is actually according to his physical chart at Iowa 6-3, 279lbs. that was the argument I was waiting for you to make. But if I remember he was measured at 6-2, 280lbs. at the Senior Bowl. the combine could be more telling, but I bet he is higher end 6-2...still my argument stands. And as I said, if we stick to the 4-3, Mitch King becomes a huge option.

King measured in at 6'1, 275 lbs at the Senior Bowl. He's a Strongside End at best. He doesn't have the quicks to be a 3-4 SOLB though. He's certainly not a 3-4 DE.

[Mat'hir Uth Gan]

Maybe I'm just too eager to see these current players gone, even if they stayed with the 4-3 (Which suits me fine) I think they need massive upgrades across the board.

Right here right now, I'm hoping everybody except Williams, Peterson and Thomas (and MAYBE Moss/Crowder/Larsen) are no longer with the team in a year or two. As much as I criticize players, I try not to get into "This guy has got to go" or "That should be cut" too much.......but I am eagerly anticipating much of these players leaving. Maybe that's why I'm excited for a 34 for the first time ever, I've never been a big fan.

I'm curious to know who you consider worthwhile (As starters) in staying with the 43.......

You know that the reason we sucked so bad this year on defense is that Ian Gold retired on us, right?

[MindField]

You know that the reason we sucked so bad this year on defense is that Ian Gold retired on us, right?

Exactly....in fact, he was in such demand, he decided to just retire...

[Bowie Man]

I saw that there were a few people who didn't like the fact that I didn't have us getting an ILB, and that some people don't like the King pick. I can put an alternate pick there, but here's my argument. When Larsen played at MLB, we were better at stopping the run. Stopping Michael Turner is no small feat, and we held to 82 yards, most of it off of two runs. I don't think it's coincidence. However, it is in dispute if King will be a good 3-4 DE. Depending on if we want King to help transition, we may want to go a different route, so i'll put my alternate in.