Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 179
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoserman117 View Post
    Yeah and the Vikings also weren't interested in Matt Kalil... All teams give out smoke screens. There's a solid bunch of DT's and Corners left on the board and only 3 teams ahead of us tomorrow.
    So you are saying we were never drafting for impact. but need all along? is that correct?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    9,526
    Quote Originally Posted by fightinglee View Post
    according to elway though, we are not really that interested in DT's. His words not mine. He thinks our DT's are fine so we are going to draft purely on impact.

    Thats what makes this weird. Usually if your philosophy is best available talent, you dont trade down multiple times. Now if you are drafting need, you might trade down for more picks and hope to find a gem down late.
    Teams draft based on need. They pick the BPA for a team need. If you have the best left tackle in the league on your team and the next BPA at your pick is a left tackle most teams will not take that player but find the next BPA to fill a need.

    This was obvious all night long that teams were taking people that they need.

    I think the players the Broncos were looking at were not there so instead of reaching they traded back to the range where the players should be drafted.

    This is unlike what McDummy did while he was here which was reach on every draft pick he made.

    Samparnell - Adopted Coach & Mentor
    2016 Adopted Bronco - Derek Wolfe
    2014 Adopted Bronco - DeMarcus Ware - 2015 Adopted Bronco - Von Miller

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,311
    A team has to value your pick enough to give up compensation to get that pick. Why is it so hard to understand that most teams viewed the draft between picks #25-36 to contain equal talent.

    There are 6 guys that could have gone at #25 without anyone blinking that are still on the board. When you have that much surplus of like talent, teams just do not care enough to offer much.

    We will get a guy we could have selected at #25 at 36 and picked up #101 in the process. No need to not get #101 for pride's sake of a draft value chart that is just a sample, not reality.
    Ravens GM 2016 - Ravens are looking to trade down 4-8 spots

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by shawinkerpoppin View Post
    I will say that my personal beef is passing on mercillus who I didnt think would be there. If we happen to take curry I wouldnt be upset becuase that guy did nothing but make plays in college. But from the trades it appears we are looking need based or else we would have taken Whitney mercillus in my opinion.
    I can agree with you here. If we were going for impact, which i personally agree with, then we would have used that pick on someone, perhaps on mercillus. If it is not DT tomorrow that we could have picked up, then the trade seems kind of mysterious.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by one_bad_55 View Post
    Teams draft based on need. They pick the BPA for a team need. If you have the best left tackle in the league on your team and the next BPA at your pick is a left tackle most teams will not take that player but find the next BPA to fill a need.

    This was obvious all night long that teams were taking people that they need.

    I think the players the Broncos were looking at were not there so instead of reaching they traded back to the range where the players should be drafted.

    This is unlike what McDummy did while he was here which was reach on every draft pick he made.
    I dont know what McD was doing. I couldnt figure him out at all. I dont think he thought he was reaching. I think he was just an idiot.

    The thing is, Denver needs a lot. There is not just one position of need. You could pretty much upgrade any defensive position on our team.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Section 120 Row 26
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSalute View Post
    A team has to value your pick enough to give up compensation to get that pick. Why is it so hard to understand that most teams viewed the draft between picks #25-36 to contain equal talent.

    There are 6 guys that could have gone at #25 without anyone blinking that are still on the board. When you have that much surplus of like talent, teams just do not care enough to offer much.

    We will get a guy we could have selected at #25 at 36 and picked up #101 in the process. No need to not get #101 for pride's sake of a draft value chart that is just a sample, not reality.
    Thats a possibility, teams may not view the draft chart as valid, so they dont care what value they get as long as more picks can be had. If they do use the chart, they would not view that range of picks as equal.

    So what you said is a real possibility. Elway may not view the chart as valid and simply wants more picks regardless of what he gave up to get them.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    10,752
    Just remember there is always a top talent for whatever reason is there at the beginning of he 4th round. We are now there to snatch them up.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Atl
    Posts
    2,546
    For people wanting to know how bad we got hosed here it is


    Originally Posted by jlhawkins9:
    720 for 540 and 96 = 636

    720-636= 84

    So we basically gave away FREE The 105 pick..... 4 th rd pick Pick 9

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,408
    Can we please make a selection tomorrow? Pretty please?




    FA Targets: DT Jason Jones, DT Pat Simms, S Reggie Smith, LB Dan Connor




  10. #55
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,258
    can someone please explain to me why we had to give up OUR fourth to move out of the first round again?
    XboxLive GamerTag: ShizzleDizzle05 (Accepts all friend requests from fellow Broncos fans)

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    1,099
    Quote Originally Posted by one_bad_55 View Post
    I can't believe you guys. Complain we didn't reach on a player and then complain we didn't get enough value in a trade.

    You want to draft someone who we don't really need instead of trying to find some good deals and adding somemore depth and talent.

    Apperantly the paid FO at Broncos headquarters know less than all the moaners here on the boards.

    Let them do their jobs and after the draft and preseason then you can cast stones if things do not work out.
    Unacceptable that they were 4 spots ahead of Baltimore and then ended up behind them in the 2nd and in the 4th. That is just not smart negotiating. People have a right to be mad. A big right..
    Tampa Bay Buccaneers GM

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Section 120 Row 26
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Shsonline View Post
    can someone please explain to me why we had to give up OUR fourth to move out of the first round again?
    When someone can tell you that, please let me know. I cant figure it out.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh,PA
    Posts
    210
    I really don't understand some people on here, we traded back 13 spots acquired 2 picks in a deep draft class. Imagine If we reached for worthy at 25, that would force us to reach on more players of need. EFX draft strategy has been to find starters and we can still get about 4 quality starters mixed in with some decent impact players. CHILL

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,183
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhawkins9 View Post
    For people wanting to know how bad we got hosed here it is


    Originally Posted by jlhawkins9:
    720 for 540 and 96 = 636

    720-636= 84

    So we basically gave away FREE The 105 pick..... 4 th rd pick Pick 9
    Dude no one follows that chart anymore. It's pointless

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoStampede View Post
    Is that the pre-Rookie Salary Cap chart, or one made after? My understanding was that 1st round picks increased in value with the rookie cap in place.

Posting Permissions

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