Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 220
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    13,651
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSalute View Post
    There is the rub, we have 2 starters penciled in at OT. One needs improvement (basically cut penalties in half) and the other needs to recover from knee issue. That said, are we not much better off keeping what we have at OT? Bolles may come with a discount (given his age and familiarity) and James, who has way too much guarantees to be a backup or be cut.

    My opinion is grab an OT or two 4th round or later and create competition, but don't use a premium resource for OT when there is not a clear starter spot for them. There is a clear spot at RG for now, but that may not be true after FA.

    Agree with OP that WR is a waste at 15, particularly since we have a #1 and just spent a 1st on a receiving TE...only need so many targets and complimentary guys can be found 3rd round or later.

    *Edit* Also think the Bolles criticism is way overblown. His pressures allowed rate has always been good. Ya some of that comes from the holds, but he still can improve there...and we have seen what he can be over long stretches. Part of the problem is reputation IMO, so once he plays smart some of the calls against him will organically fade away.
    Here is where we differ in opinion. I think OT and especially blind side OT are the most premium resource after qb. Makes no sense to me to invest so much in a qb and then play russian roulette with his health with inconsistent tackles.

    Imo by the end of next year there is a very good chance we may be looking at needing atleast 1 OT and maybe even 2. While James does carry a $6 million cap hit if we cut him next season, it would also give us a cap savings of $8 million if we did. If he is still not reliable to be on the field week in and week out, this has to be a serious consideration .We can use the roster spot for someone who will be available week in and week out and the $8 million will help that cause. No sense crying over the 6. OL on rookie contracts would certainly help make that easier. While we do have MM, I would rather give him as polished of prospects as I can get to cut the development time down, not to mention the OL position warrants that . You win in the trenches. We also need to improve our depth on the line. We all complain from year to year how it keeps happening but we try to fix it with expensive free agents who are on the market for a reason. I would love to see OT, OT and C all come out of this draft. Give me Munchack and Lock and an OL that can be developed for the long term future. Every year it seams people get caught up with the fancy new toy at a skill position and think we should put off OL till later so we can get the new toy. I am the direct opposite. I think we should attack OLine in the draft now. We can fill in the skill positions with FA and other picks in the draft.

    edit: You have way more positive look on Bolles than I do. He has been inconsistent since we first got him. Too many holding calls, gets beat around the edge a bunch, has a reputation for not being the most teachable and by some of his comments and actions, I believe it. I don't feel confident at all with him out there at LT. I would rather try moving him to G and McGovern back to guard.
    Last edited by FL BRONCO; 01-28-2020 at 07:55 PM.
    My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10
    If all 3 are there at 15, I'm taking Kinlaw. Maybe 2nd round , or later we pick up an OT. Maybe next year.
    Please don't reach. And don't take a WR early, at least not 1st round.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lost in transport.
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by RocketArm006 View Post
    For the entire season, everyone on this board was screaming about the OL. One of the biggest arguments for keeping Lock on the bench was ďhe will get killed behind this lineĒ.

    The second the season ends, it turns into ďwe need to draft WR #1Ē. Baffling.

    I personally think o-line should be the first priority.
    With Mike Munchak's history we don't HAVE to select an OL in the 1st. He'll be able to find talent and develop them from any part of the draft.
    Are you looking for college all 22? Click the link. https://www.patreon.com/CaddytotheLama

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Murph2432 View Post
    I am usually a firm believer you donít draft WR in the first round because they are a dime a dozen. However, I get excited thinking of getting Ruggs and his speed on this offense. To have Sutton, Ruggs, Fant, and Lindsey is so appealing. It really all depends on what we do during FA and with our other picks because we do need to address the OL. I just donít think we have to spend a first to resolve it. That being said, I wouldnít be upset if we did draft an OL first overall. It will run us into the issue where James or Bolles would have to be benched or the OL sits for a year. We canít get rid of Bolles or James because of their guarantees. But thereís a chances one of them gets hurt.... James
    That's how we wound up with this current Oline

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrick44 View Post
    One problem though is I believe the FO like Bolles more than us. We are stuck with James and Bolles for at least one more year due to cap hits. Schlereth has pointed out multiple times that we will have at least one more year of Bolles and he hates him.
    There are other options at OLine besides OT at 15. Wirfs very well might play OG and Biadasz is an OC. Both would be solid picks.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by HDbroncos02 View Post
    Iíd rather take a 1st round speedster at WR than sign an overpriced veteran. With that being said, Ruggs is a much different prospect than Perriman. Ruggs is already a more dynamic route runner and has better hands than he does. Speed is his best attribute of course, but heís a much more complete WR and would be the first receiver off the board last year.

    Again, I stress that the best player available at our position in the draft should be picked. Yes, thatís subjective. Letís just evaluate our positions of need at the moment.

    OT:
    1. Wills Jr.
    2. Thomas
    3. Wirfs
    4. Becton

    WR:
    1. Jeudy
    2. Lamb
    3. Ruggs
    4. Higgins

    DL:
    1. Brown
    2. Kinlaw
    3. Epenesa

    CB:
    1. Okudah
    2. Fulton


    Out of these guys, I suspect only Becton, Ruggs, Higgins, and one out of either Kinlaw/Epenesa to be available where we pick. As much as I would love a franchise OT to rid ourselves of Bolles, I just donít see Becton being that guy. I donít know if Kinlaw would be available after a strong Senior Bowl week, but if he is there at #15, I would strongly consider it. I think Ruggs and Higgins are close in terms of their rankings, but Ruggs fits our offensive personnel needs much better.
    I keep hearing that OT won't be available at 15. I'm not sure why. Burrow, Herbert, Tua, Okudah, Young, Brown, Kinlaw are all very likely top 15 picks. That only leaves 7 spots before the Broncos and that doesn't include the option of moving up.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by RocketArm006 View Post
    For the entire season, everyone on this board was screaming about the OL. One of the biggest arguments for keeping Lock on the bench was ďhe will get killed behind this lineĒ.

    The second the season ends, it turns into ďwe need to draft WR #1Ē. Baffling.

    I personally think o-line should be the first priority.
    agreed

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by HDbroncos02 View Post
    What would you do at #15 if the top OL on the board is Mehki Becton? And letís say (realistically) that Ruggs and Kinlaw are available. Wills, Thomas, and Wirfs are already off the board. Do you reach for an OT that doesnít fit our offensive scheme? Or would you trade back? Iíve been banging the table for OL all season, just like the others as you said. Iím just trying to be realistic about our current draft position and who might be available there at the different areas of need for our team.
    Tyler Biadasz

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by CaddyToTheLama View Post
    With Mike Munchak's history we don't HAVE to select an OL in the 1st. He'll be able to find talent and develop them from any part of the draft.
    I don't how true this is

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FORT COLLINS COLORADO
    Posts
    8,562
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    I keep hearing that OT won't be available at 15. I'm not sure why. Burrow, Herbert, Tua, Okudah, Young, Brown, Kinlaw are all very likely top 15 picks. That only leaves 7 spots before the Broncos and that doesn't include the option of moving up.
    Kinlaw may drop to our pick but wirfs Thomas and willis all are showing up in the top 15 normally before we pick. Also Simmons and brown(who is way better then kinlaw) will be top 15 picks

    oakland raders gm
    latavis murray trade bait

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,133
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    Tyler Biadasz
    Right now I'd rather get Cushenberry in the second. And I'd be okay with Becton (or other OT) in the first and Cushenberry in the second.

    Rather than hoping Munchak can develop someone, maybe give him a couple of gems early?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyousukeneko View Post
    Kinlaw may drop to our pick but wirfs Thomas and willis all are showing up in the top 15 normally before we pick. Also Simmons and brown(who is way better then kinlaw) will be top 15 picks
    mocks are usually wrong and they will probably be within 5 picks if they don't fall to 15. No OT will go top 5 probably leaving 10 spots so there is a very good chance one of those 3 falls to 15.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyousukeneko View Post
    Kinlaw may drop to our pick but wirfs Thomas and willis all are showing up in the top 15 normally before we pick. Also Simmons and brown(who is way better then kinlaw) will be top 15 picks
    Someone good is going to drop. Especially since there will be 3 QBs taken in the top 14. I'd love for it to be one of those tackles, but Simmons (my favourite) and Brown would be a run the card to the podium situation.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler By'Note View Post
    Right now I'd rather get Cushenberry in the second. And I'd be okay with Becton (or other OT) in the first and Cushenberry in the second.

    Rather than hoping Munchak can develop someone, maybe give him a couple of gems early?
    crazy talk

    both Biadasz and Cushenberry are good prospects

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FORT COLLINS COLORADO
    Posts
    8,562
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    mocks are usually wrong and they will probably be within 5 picks if they don't fall to 15. No OT will go top 5 probably leaving 10 spots so there is a very good chance one of those 3 falls to 15.
    there is a chance that one falls, but the Giants, and the Cardnals makes to much sense taking O-line. theres was worst then ours and Gettlemen has a history for taking O-line EArly. also the Browns and the JEts also really need OT Help. i just don't see any of them dropping

    oakland raders gm
    latavis murray trade bait

Posting Permissions

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