Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 246
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    268
    I think Cofield will certainly be leaving New York and would be a great addition to this team. New York drafted Linval Joseph in the second last year and Marvin Austin in the second this year. They also have Chris Canty signed to a pretty fat contract. If Denver were to be able to sign either Mebane or Cofield this would be the turn around of something great.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,758
    You are bound to be disappointed. The Broncos didn't trade for or sign elite FA DTs because they are few and far between and the few that ever hit the market are HIDEOUSLY expense.

    Just think how much time and energy the Broncos wasted on signing and hoping these guys would pan out at DT:

    Gerrard Warren, Amon Gordon, John Engleberger, Antwon Burton, Jimmy Kennedy, DeWayne Robertson, Ron Fields, Justin Bannan, Jamal Williams, etc., etc.

    In most cases there simply WEREN'T better options available -- any more than there usually are at QB.

    Nothing has changed in 2011. There's still (presumably) going to be a salary cap. So, the Broncos certainly are NOT going to go out and sign a bunch of insanely priced FA DTs. And that doesn't take into account that there may be either NO FA or a very abbreviated FA this season because of the lockout.

    DTs are the SINGLE MOST HIGHLY DRAFTED POSITION next to QB. Period. Good ones almost never become FAs until, like Warren Sapp, they are on the downside of their careers.

    Then some desperate team like the Raiders pays them the Denver Mint and winds up disappointed because the Warren Sapp they got was NOT the Warren Sapp of the 2003 SB Bucs who was terrorizing NFL QBs.
    http://www.fbpages.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/159174168050152087_zRr4orMC_c.jpg

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,758
    If you think this is going to happen, you are bound to be disappointed. No veteran FA wants to come to a 4-12 team unless they pay him a lot more than other teams. Often, not even then.

    Most of these veteran guys have that ONE CHANCE to get onto a contender with a chance to win the SB before their career ends. And they don't want to come to Denver.

    That's part of the reason Denver has always signed FA scrubs who were just happy to have a job.
    http://www.fbpages.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/159174168050152087_zRr4orMC_c.jpg

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by MilEhiGh_11 View Post
    he is his own man. leave the comparisons alone these new broncos will create them selves along with there legacies . congrats neew brocoxfcv
    I agree with not comparing....Al Wilson left his heart and soul out on the field every single game. He practically paralyzed himself for the love of the game. Not saying others do or don't , or will or won't, but at the peak of Al's prime.....he proved he was one of the best two MLB's in the league. Remember the match up Mon. night against the Ravens.....he had a better showing than Ray Ray that night. Our defense has never been the same without Al. I'm totally rooting for Nate Irving....but if he does great things....he will make a name for himself !!!!!!


  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat'hir Uth Gan View Post
    I would have done that trade in a heartbeat, but then, I'm convinced Fairley is a rare talent that will have a Suh like impact.

    Moore has potential, but I'm not overly impressed with finesse safeties that shy away from contact. He also only had one good year in college and it wasn't last year.

    Franklin is fine and all, but we have no idea if he can even play RT. He said himself he's more of an OG, which is why I stopped mocking him as an OT.

    Irving might be good. Just because Parcells liked him doesn't mean anything to me. Parcells took Bobby Carpenter in the 1st Round too. And he was terrible. Irving has the injury history from the crash, was removed from some draft boards because of that.

    I would trade Rahim Moore, Orlando Franklin, and Nate Irving for Nick Fairley every time.
    I wouldn't have made that trade but that's because I think Austin or Paea would have been perfectly adequate alternatives in the 2nd round. Perhaps both of them.

    I don't think RT was the #3 need on this team. They could have re-signed Harris for one more year and gotten by. True, he might not be ideal, but DT was a much bigger need that I would have liked to see the Broncos get BOTH DTs.

    I have nothing against Rahim Moore who was rated the #1 S in a very weak class. If you accept the idea that the Broncos desperately needed a S then you accept they should have drafted Moore.

    IF Fairley becomes an All-Pro then I think that non-trade was a bad idea. But, if either Austin (whom I like) or Paea (whom I really like) become solid starters and good players for their teams I'd say the REAL bone-head maneuver was failing to get a DT in round 2, NOT failing to make this trade.
    http://www.fbpages.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/159174168050152087_zRr4orMC_c.jpg

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Whitehall, PA
    Posts
    27
    why werent you a fan of arguably one of the best players in the draft lol

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    16,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    If you think this is going to happen, you are bound to be disappointed. No veteran FA wants to come to a 4-12 team unless they pay him a lot more than other teams. Often, not even then.

    Most of these veteran guys have that ONE CHANCE to get onto a contender with a chance to win the SB before their career ends. And they don't want to come to Denver.

    That's part of the reason Denver has always signed FA scrubs who were just happy to have a job.
    Serious question, what legit contender is going to sign Cofield?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edge of Orange
    Posts
    2,980
    I would love a Mebane/Cofield/Vickerson/Thomas rotation. We get this and we won't be talking about the defensive front four first round draft pick next year.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Downtown Denver
    Posts
    6,314
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    I love your awesome graphics with the mountain background. Very cool!

    However, you have twelve guys on O.
    I did this intentionally, i believe that three receiver sets will be the bulk of our offense, but i needed to include a fullback. the top three receivers should be considered the starters IMO
    Fightin' Texas Aggie c/o '16

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Downtown Denver
    Posts
    6,314
    Quote Originally Posted by JaysusCutler View Post
    I think other than the obvious QB situation, MLB is the biggest storyline in camp battles. Will Irving start? Mays? Is there a darkhorse that will take the job? I can't wait for this damn lockout to end.
    I think it will be the most interesting on offense, but overall i see tight end being interesting.
    Fightin' Texas Aggie c/o '16

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edge of Orange
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    You are bound to be disappointed. The Broncos didn't trade for or sign elite FA DTs because they are few and far between and the few that ever hit the market are HIDEOUSLY expense.

    Just think how much time and energy the Broncos wasted on signing and hoping these guys would pan out at DT:

    Gerrard Warren, Amon Gordon, John Engleberger, Antwon Burton, Jimmy Kennedy, DeWayne Robertson, Ron Fields, Justin Bannan, Jamal Williams, etc., etc.

    In most cases there simply WEREN'T better options available -- any more than there usually are at QB.

    Nothing has changed in 2011. There's still (presumably) going to be a salary cap. So, the Broncos certainly are NOT going to go out and sign a bunch of insanely priced FA DTs. And that doesn't take into account that there may be either NO FA or a very abbreviated FA this season because of the lockout.

    DTs are the SINGLE MOST HIGHLY DRAFTED POSITION next to QB. Period. Good ones almost never become FAs until, like Warren Sapp, they are on the downside of their careers.

    Then some desperate team like the Raiders pays them the Denver Mint and winds up disappointed because the Warren Sapp they got was NOT the Warren Sapp of the 2003 SB Bucs who was terrorizing NFL QBs.
    Cugel, you make some good points.

    I would tend to agree with you, but this year may be different.

    More teams are switching to a 3-4 defense. They will not hold as many DT's because they truly use only 1-3 in a game. And with the many DT's drafted so highly this year, many teams will be pressured to the play the young guys and part with their veterans.

    We may not end up with a Pro-Bowl DT, but I still believe we can upgrade over what we've had in the past.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    I wouldn't have made that trade but that's because I think Austin or Paea would have been perfectly adequate alternatives in the 2nd round. Perhaps both of them.

    I don't think RT was the #3 need on this team. They could have re-signed Harris for one more year and gotten by. True, he might not be ideal, but DT was a much bigger need that I would have liked to see the Broncos get BOTH DTs.

    I have nothing against Rahim Moore who was rated the #1 S in a very weak class. If you accept the idea that the Broncos desperately needed a S then you accept they should have drafted Moore.

    IF Fairley becomes an All-Pro then I think that non-trade was a bad idea. But, if either Austin (whom I like) or Paea (whom I really like) become solid starters and good players for their teams I'd say the REAL bone-head maneuver was failing to get a DT in round 2, NOT failing to make this trade.
    Lots of "ifs".......

    It's done. Fairley may turn into a problem, so that needs to be factored in. But to give up "steep" compensation for a team with lots of needs is not advisable. Too much on too few. Sure I'd love Miller and Fairley, and yes, I would have liked Miller and Austin or Paea.....that's the route I'd have gone.

    But lets not discount what Moore, Franklin and the others will do to balance our team. And if the price included a #1 for 2012, I'm not buying in, because we really narrow our opportunities with that trade. Imagine giving up a potential stud next year and the players we acquired this year???

    Fairley could be a problem......

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edge of Orange
    Posts
    2,980
    Fairley is going to benefit greatly by playing for the Lions. Having him along Suh will give him opportunities that he wouldn't have gotten by playing here.

    I liked Fairley because of the havoc he causes in the opponent's backfield. I don't think giving up half of this year's draft and our first rounder next year would have been worth it, though.

    I wonder if Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers and Christian Ponder are nervous about facing that front four of the Lions twice a year?

    Oh, YIKES, we have to play them too, next season.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,209
    furthermore......the one thing that bugs me about our forum (sometimes) is the endless rehash and dead horse beating that we do about what happened in the past......

    I think we should move on, see what FA brings, and forget about what ifs for a change.

    I say lets become "what may be".....

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    31,578

    Lightbulb Formations

    Quote Originally Posted by broncooojohnson View Post
    I did this intentionally, i believe that three receiver sets will be the bulk of our offense, but i needed to include a fullback. the top three receivers should be considered the starters IMO
    I Formation w/X, Y and Z

    Single Back w/TE (Y) and X (Split End), Z and another WR (A, H-Back, 20) This can be many configurations. Each playbook has its own terms.

    Spread/Gun w/no TE and four WRs (suitable for Spread Option) I like Quads motion to Bunch.

    Tight I w/ a Flanker (Z)

    Tight Power I

    This is probably most of what is possible. Just take each one and fill in the blanks.
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •