No announcement yet.

The Alphonso Smith Trade

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tron Solo View Post
    We could always go after a corner in FA Nnamdi Asomugha. We would have the All NFL pronunciation nightmare team also a nightmare to our opponents.

    I am not very impressed with A.Smith right now, at least he was supposed to be an awesome return man, even a rookie should have instant impact in the return game.
    Asomugha isn't a free agent until 2012.


    • #32
      our pick V. Chicago's

      Originally posted by fraguela09 View Post
      I think it all worked out for Mcdaniels- this was the "best case scenario" for Josh really. We might question his choice of player, and we're going to look back in 2-3 years and know for sure if he made the right selection....

      But one thing is looking certain- we got fair value for what we gave up.

      ... ...

      4- How brilliant does Mcdaniels look now, given CHI might be handing us a top-12 pick! He showed he believes in his team and he put his draft picks where his heart was. He gladly handed SEA our pick and kept CHI's. Are we going to complain when we're getting a top player this April?
      It's worth reminding people that what many objected to was the idea of a "high" 1st round pick being used to acquire Alphonso Smith rather than just a 1st round pick.

      Some of the posters complained about trading away a top ten pick, which I argued then was a partly invalid argument since it failed to account for the discounting rate of trading for a pick in the next draft. An additional weakness to the argument was the cost-effectiveness of top ten picks, which many people still don't seem to appreciate nor fully comprehend.

      However, what clearly upset many people was the idea that we had traded our pick rather than Chicago's 1st round pick.

      It's always been revealing that the coup de grace for so many posters was the idea that "our pick" had been traded, a pick that was -- it was assumed -- clearly highly valuable because we were going to be an awful team. I'm not trying to rub it in, especially since our eventual draft slot is still uncertain, but it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to be a terrible team and thus the overriding logic for many posters was that we should take our lumps and let our bounty of high draft picks allow us to draft difference-makers who would eventually turn the team around in the long run.

      In other words, we were going to be a very bad team and anyone who didn't believe it was a Kool-aid drinker addled by orange-colored brew. The issue of the 'phonz' trade was diagnostic in that it revealed how little faith people had in this team & staff and how willing they were to trade the present for a future in which a bad team floundered and thus 'earned' high picks.

      It's interesting that the issue of "trade discipline" emerged in part because we didn't drive a hard bargain with Seattle and force them (as it were) to accept Chicago's pick. Our willingness to accept a trade for our 1st round pick rather than Chicago's was seen as further evidence that McDaniels didn't know what he was doing, a theme that many so-called experts (e.g., Jamie Dukes, etc.) had been hammering us on during the Cutlergate issue, and later. Notice -- also -- that Xanders received little or no blame despite having responsibility in this area. It was even argued by posters who presented themself as knowledgeable that Xanders had merely taken his orders from McDaniels, a dubious argument given the lack of supporting evidence.

      What "everyone knew" at a point in April hasn't turned out to be the case. Alphonso Smith has yet to answer his critics in a way that would dispel doubts but the terms of the trade that enabled his acquisition are reasonable when compared to other trades of this type and the Broncos' assessment of his value.

      I wouldn't say that the 'phonz' has demonstrated his value yet but he's 'flashed' at times, which provides a reason for being hopeful. Personally speaking, I dislike the argument that draft picks need to 'show' early, because it often entails their starting on a rebuilding team that lacks veteran talent. In honor of our upcoming foe, I'll call it the Kansas City scenario, a scenario in which you tear down the house and let the rookies learn through a baptism by fire. Quality teams groom their players gradually, and this seems to be the best way of training players even though it often fails to garner statistics. Perpetually-rebuilding teams employ 'baptism by fire/sink or swim' methods, and even though some of the players succeed, it's the overall story that includes many prospects who don't that's missed in the narrative.

      Multi-year planning requires that one take a long-term view. By its nature, the picture only emerges after the passage of time. I not only wouldn't have a problem drafting Alphonso Smith again, I'd like to see us draft yet another CB in this draft, as others here would. CB is a position that's emerging as an impact position so there's still a hole (or holes) to be filled in order to meet the criteria of a multi-year plan.
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. - Louis Armstrong


      • #33
        I still would have like 2 - 1st Round Picks this year

        2010 Draft

        1st Round - Cameron Heyward 6'6" 289lbs
        1st Round - Mike Iupati 6'5" 330lbs

        Hind sight is 20/20 but that would have been sick


        • #34
          re: Jack Williams

          Originally posted by 91bronco View Post
          After reading through this topic, I have a question... With apparent need at CB why release Jack Williams for a one year rental in Law? He was a 2nd year player with speed and still developing. Thoughts appreciated
          I can only assume that the staff saw some things they didn't like. We went through this before with Foxworth and Paymah, who showed hints of potential but also disappointed. A decision on a player's future prospects has to be made at some point, sometimes sooner than later, and a space is created to allow the long-term answer an opening on the roster.

          The gist of the argument is that you cut ties once it's determined that the player will never meet expectations. Waiting longer to find this out only forestalls the solution to the problem, and often merely demonstrates to be true what you believed all along.

          Roster spots are too valuable to waste on a player who -- it appears -- will never meet your expectations for that position. Moreover, it's not a question of the CB position in isolation -- there are other players who are contributing that deserve spots. You can't fix one position by hurting yourself elsewhere on the roster.

          Also, it's misleading to view the question of Nickel coverage -- as some have done -- as solely dependent on the CBs. Woodyard and Barrett have contributed to our Big Nickel package and I'd expect that part of the answer to 'big receivers' is at Safety. And this is also why pass coverage ability is such an important attribute for our Safeties.

          I expect that we'll continue to 'look' at CBs (by drafting them) until we've met our performance criterion for that position. Jack Williams wasn't the answer, nor was Foxworth and Paymah.

          My understanding from reading on the subject, is that CB is a hard position to predict. Perhaps, much like WR, it's difficult to train them because of the complexity of the passing game, so the term "predict" should be understood more in terms of demonstrating a proclivity for learning a complex task rather than possessing or not possessing an innate physical ability. We should all be aware of how spectacular individual plays don't add up to proficient team play (think Webster and 2008).
          There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. - Louis Armstrong