Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    414

    What's the price

    Of moving up to the 33rd pick?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Our 2
    First 3

    And a 6 or 7

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,540
    Quote Originally Posted by MHOC View Post
    Our 2
    First 3

    And a 6 or 7
    Perhaps more than that. For reference in 2015 the Giants moved up from 40 to 33, and it cost them their 2nd, 4th, and 6th. We are picking at 51. From that same draft, houston moved up from 51 to 43, and it cost them their 2nd, 4th, and 5th.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington
    Posts
    3,179
    All trades are subjective. It all depends on how badly the person wants to move down...or how badly a team wishes to move up. Sure there is an objective chart to go by....but that is a just a guideline not a league rule in wish teams have to follow. Who do you want at 33? Just curious?
    New England Patriots GM

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicago via California
    Posts
    1,699
    Tangent note:

    Anyone remember the debate whether or not DEN should
    play for pride or draft position during week 17 against OAK?

    I wonder if any poster has changed their mind either way?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    414
    No one certain. I just feel like there will be a few guys who fall. TJ watt Forest Lamp and a few others who may be on our radar at #20 but fall.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington
    Posts
    3,179
    Quote Originally Posted by mozzerpete View Post
    Tangent note:

    Anyone remember the debate whether or not DEN should
    play for pride or draft position during week 17 against OAK?

    I wonder if any poster has changed their mind either way?
    I still think we did the right thing and played to win the game. I disagree with Kubiak playing Siemian hurt the entire game, especially since our Defense had ahold of their Offense. But playing to lose shouldn't even be an option in Bronco Football.
    New England Patriots GM

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by mozzerpete View Post
    Tangent note:

    Anyone remember the debate whether or not DEN should
    play for pride or draft position during week 17 against OAK?

    I wonder if any poster has changed their mind either way?
    Nope I have not. I think we should have benched and subbed players and not won. We were already out of the post season and at that point we should have already been looking ahead to the next season and the draft....to that end draft position is kind of important.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    Nope I have not. I think we should have benched and subbed players and not won. We were already out of the post season and at that point we should have already been looking ahead to the next season and the draft....to that end draft position is kind of important.
    Agreed. I forget where would we have been drafting if we lost?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    27,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    Nope I have not. I think we should have benched and subbed players and not won. We were already out of the post season and at that point we should have already been looking ahead to the next season and the draft....to that end draft position is kind of important.
    Really? I would be interested to know you would expect to have accomplished that in view of the fact the Raiders scored six points. Carr was out. McGloin got knocked out after 22 snaps and Connor Cook, who was active for his first game, took over.

    I like how you say that you hoped the Broncos had "not won". Why not just say you wanted them to lose? Hey, Coach, before the team leaves the locker room, tell them to go out there and lose because we want to get as high in next year's draft order as possible.
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lochbuie, co
    Posts
    2,631
    Quote Originally Posted by mozzerpete View Post
    Tangent note:

    Anyone remember the debate whether or not DEN should
    play for pride or draft position during week 17 against OAK?

    I wonder if any poster has changed their mind either way?
    NEVER! Not against the Raiders! Never.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by NVthosebroncos View Post
    Agreed. I forget where would we have been drafting if we lost?
    Looks like we would have been selecting 17th in the first, 16th in the 2nd, 15th in the third, etc. Because of strength of schedule we would draft last out of the 8-8 teams. Not that big of a change, really.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicago via California
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Kon View Post
    Looks like we would have been selecting 17th in the first, 16th in the 2nd, 15th in the third, etc. Because of strength of schedule we would draft last out of the 8-8 teams. Not that big of a change, really.
    P14: (PHI) via MIN 8-8 (0.488) (Conf 5-7) (Div 2-4, 3rd place)
    P15: IND 8-8 (0.477) (Conf 5-7) (Div 3-3, 3rd place)
    P16: BAL 8-8 (0.484) (Conf 7-5) (Div 4-2, 2nd place)

    P17: WAS 8-7-1 (0.492) (Conf 6-6) (Div 3-3, 3rd place)

    P18: TEN 9-7 (0.473) (Conf 6-6) (Div 2-4, 2nd place)
    P19: TB 9-7 (0.543) (Conf 7-5) (Div 4-2, 2nd place)
    P20: DEN 9-7 (0.504) (Conf 6-6) (Div 2-4, 3rd place)

    Draft order is based on wins, strength of schedule, conference then division record.

    Given this info from NFL.com I'm uncertain as to why TEN is ahead of DEN or BAL is ahead of IND.

    DEN at 8-8 and strength of schedule (0.504) would be selecting at P14.

    Unless I'm off?
    Last edited by mozzerpete; 03-20-2017 at 03:56 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    We would have picked 18th in the first round had we lost to Oak
    SOS goes from low to high not the other way around

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by mozzerpete View Post
    P14: (PHI) via MIN 8-8 (0.488) (Conf 5-7) (Div 2-4, 3rd place)
    P15: IND 8-8 (0.477) (Conf 5-7) (Div 3-3, 3rd place)
    P16: BAL 8-8 (0.484) (Conf 7-5) (Div 4-2, 2nd place)

    P17: WAS 8-7-1 (0.492) (Conf 6-6) (Div 3-3, 3rd place)

    P18: TEN 9-7 (0.473) (Conf 6-6) (Div 2-4, 2nd place)
    P19: TB 9-7 (0.543) (Conf 7-5) (Div 4-2, 2nd place)
    P20: DEN 9-7 (0.504) (Conf 6-6) (Div 2-4, 3rd place)

    Draft order is based on wins, strength of schedule, conference then division record.

    Given this info from NFL.com I'm uncertain as to why TEN is ahead of DEN or BAL is ahead of IND.

    DEN at 8-8 and strength of schedule (0.504) would be selecting at P14.

    Unless I'm off?
    Those strength of schedule numbers are off. Maybe that's from last year?

    It would look like this:

    15. Indianapolis Colts
    2016 record: 8-8 (.492)

    16. Baltimore Ravens
    2016 record: 8-8 (.498)

    17. Denver Broncos
    2016 record 8-8 (.549)

    The stronger the strength of schedule, the later the team picks. Our strength of schedule was tied for most difficult in the league, along with the Cleveland Browns also at .549. Our SoS was crazy high because we had to play Kansas City and Oakland twice, both ended at 12-4.

    Quote Originally Posted by MHOC View Post
    We would have picked 18th in the first round had we lost to Oak
    SOS goes from low to high not the other way around
    It would be 17th, since Washington had a tie they would draft later than us, 8-7-1 is a better record than 8-8. Therefore they would have drafted at 18.

Posting Permissions

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