Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 96
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington
    Posts
    3,558
    Would love it.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,326
    Quote Originally Posted by skeeter01 View Post
    Prepare yourself
    We will see, but Elway making bad selections early wouldn't surprise me. I will say though, I can't believe people would be happy with our first 2 picks being spent on pass catchers. In this hypothetical world it would mean that in the last 3 years, in the first 2 rounds, of 7 available picks, we had spent 4 on pass catchers. That is not how you build and improve a team who has been terrible in the same areas consistently over a 3 year losing period which is the longest streak since the 70's, no idea.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,607
    I'd be mad for sure. I want a 1st round WR probably more than any other position but we NEED to add to other areas with those high picks. Going all in on one position would be foolish

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way far away.
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    We will see, but Elway making bad selections early wouldn't surprise me. I will say though, I can't believe people would be happy with our first 2 picks being spent on pass catchers. In this hypothetical world it would mean that in the last 3 years, in the first 2 rounds, of 7 available picks, we had spent 4 on pass catchers. That is not how you build and improve a team who has been terrible in the same areas consistently over a 3 year losing period which is the longest streak since the 70's, no idea.
    Some would argue that our 3 year streak of losing records isn't caused by any one thing, with the exception of offensive output. We've struggled to stop the run in spurts. That cost us games against, the Jets, Rams, the Bills, the Jaguars, the Bears, the Chiefs, the Browns, and the Giants. All in the last 3 years. The one thing we've failed to do in ALL THIRTY LOSSES IN THE LAST 3 YEARS is score more than 25 points. Predominantly that has been attributed to bad QB play and bad offensive lines. We think we've upgraded, if not fixed, the quarterback position. So that would indicate we need to upgrade the offensive line. Some will argue we have. We'll get James back healthy, we added a guard/center from Detroit (Glasgow), and last year we drafted a pro bowl caliber guard. What we haven't done, since drafting Courtland Sutton, is upgrade the wide receiver position. In fact, we've lost two pro bowl level receivers (even if they weren't when they left) in DT and Sanders. You argue that Fant is the same as a WR. I don't think that's correct. But I digress.
    If you are arguing that we have drafted enough talent at the WR position over the last few years that we do not NEED anymore talented receivers, that's one thing. If you are saying we've simply drafted enough in numbers that is doesn't matter how good they are, we need to move one......well, that's another thing.
    The bottom line is our biggest deficiency, BY FAR, is scoring points. You believe better line play is a quicker, longer lasting, more efficient way of achieving that improvement, while others might argue better WRs will be more helpful.
    I guess we'll see how it shakes out in the end, because we always do.

    Let me just add this; I personally think the talent available at the pick should determine the pick, all things being equal. so if one of the top two or 3 tackles we have on our board is available, and the top 3 WRs are gone, I absolutely think you make the OT pick without hesitation. If that scenario plays out and we trade back, I'll be sad. I will think that is a mistake. But again, it's about talent. Can you get a higher quality Oline prospect in the second round than you can WR? Maybe not. Maybe the best move IS to grab the limited talent on O-line early and mine the deeper talented WR pool in the later rounds.
    Last edited by Letswinplz77; 04-17-2020 at 07:04 PM.
    All it takes to win is doing whatever it takes to win: COMMITMENT

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,551
    It depends which WRs. As long as they're the BPA I would have no issues. With Shurmur we'll probably have 3 WRs start and IMO we only have one WR that's a quality starter and we still have 8 picks after that.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,977
    Disappointed and confused. A large stable of receivers and no quality offensive linemen is a foolish recipe for failure.
    Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,326
    Quote Originally Posted by L.M. View Post
    Disappointed and confused. A large stable of receivers and no quality offensive linemen is a foolish recipe for failure.
    Imagine the YouTube highlight reels though

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    Some would argue that our 3 year streak of losing records isn't caused by any one thing, with the exception of offensive output. We've struggled to stop the run in spurts. That cost us games against, the Jets, Rams, the Bills, the Jaguars, the Bears, the Chiefs, the Browns, and the Giants. All in the last 3 years. The one thing we've failed to do in ALL THIRTY LOSSES IN THE LAST 3 YEARS is score more than 25 points. Predominantly that has been attributed to bad QB play and bad offensive lines. We think we've upgraded, if not fixed, the quarterback position. So that would indicate we need to upgrade the offensive line. Some will argue we have. We'll get James back healthy, we added a guard/center from Detroit (Glasgow), and last year we drafted a pro bowl caliber guard. What we haven't done, since drafting Courtland Sutton, is upgrade the wide receiver position. In fact, we've lost two pro bowl level receivers (even if they weren't when they left) in DT and Sanders. You argue that Fant is the same as a WR. I don't think that's correct. But I digress.
    If you are arguing that we have drafted enough talent at the WR position over the last few years that we do not NEED anymore talented receivers, that's one thing. If you are saying we've simply drafted enough in numbers that is doesn't matter how good they are, we need to move one......well, that's another thing.
    The bottom line is our biggest deficiency, BY FAR, is scoring points. You believe better line play is a quicker, longer lasting, more efficient way of achieving that improvement, while others might argue better WRs will be more helpful.
    I guess we'll see how it shakes out in the end, because we always do.

    Let me just add this; I personally think the talent available at the pick should determine the pick, all things being equal. so if one of the top two or 3 tackles we have on our board is available, and the top 3 WRs are gone, I absolutely think you make the OT pick without hesitation. If that scenario plays out and we trade back, I'll be sad. I will think that is a mistake. But again, it's about talent. Can you get a higher quality Oline prospect in the second round than you can WR? Maybe not. Maybe the best move IS to grab the limited talent on O-line early and mine the deeper talented WR pool in the later rounds.
    People have been incorrectly arguing we have fixed the offensive line for the past 5 years, while some of us have called out the deficiency year after year, and been correct. Will this be the year the minority are finally wrong ? Maybe, but I feel the only way that becomes the case is if we add one more contributor early in the draft, and ignoring that group with our first 2 picks would be silly, but ignoring it and taking two pass catches, that would be plain and simple, STUPID.

    Obviously one area of the team isn't the issue, but I will say that despite having a solid receiving group for 3 or the past 4 years with Thomas and Sanders, having them didn't make a difference with a bad offensive line and bad quarterback play. Also, people are overrating Lock and his performances, and I think having a better run game and offensive line will go further in his development then adding TWO early pass catches. The thought of that being a possibility is hilarious to me, and if it happens, I'll admit I am an idiot, but I don't see it happening.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,326
    PS: I know you don't like me bringing up past examples and evidence to support my arguments as it tends to put a bit of a damper on fan theories and such, but for the record, teams just don't use such high assets on one position like this situation is outlining. The Broncos have only ever drafted the same position in back to back first and second rounds twice. In 2006 when they took Defensive Ends back to back, and 1961 when they took Running Backs back to back. I started to look through each teams draft history and in the last 20 years the 12 teams I could be bothered going through, it happened twice, and both times were the Jets in 2017 and 2011. I would of found a couple more if I kept going but the trend was clear, it doesn't happen.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    PS: I know you don't like me bringing up past examples and evidence to support my arguments as it tends to put a bit of a damper on fan theories and such, but for the record, teams just don't use such high assets on one position like this situation is outlining. The Broncos have only ever drafted the same position in back to back first and second rounds twice. In 2006 when they took Defensive Ends back to back, and 1961 when they took Running Backs back to back. I started to look through each teams draft history and in the last 20 years the 12 teams I could be bothered going through, it happened twice, and both times were the Jets in 2017 and 2011. I would of found a couple more if I kept going but the trend was clear, it doesn't happen.
    The past doesn't equal the future. An important concept "smart" poker players understand is, it doesn't matter how much money you've put into the pot, you play the hand based on the circumstances as they are now, not how much you've already put in the pot up to this point in time. If a good player is available you take that player instead of saying, "Well...since we drafted a lot of other players in the past at the same position so we'll pass".

    Obviously one area of the team isn't the issue, but I will say that despite having a solid receiving group for 3 or the past 4 years with Thomas and Sanders, having them didn't make a difference with a bad offensive line and bad quarterback play. Also, people are overrating Lock and his performances, and I think having a better run game and offensive line will go further in his development then adding TWO early pass catches. The thought of that being a possibility is hilarious to me, and if it happens, I'll admit I am an idiot, but I don't see it happening.
    We've added a RB and OL in FA. We lost both DT and Sanders and replaced only one while shifting to an offense that prefers 3 WRs and not 2 like we did when DT and Sanders were here. Plus drafting two WRs in the first two rounds doesn't mean we can't address those positions with our later picks or in FA and trades. It isn't either/or as you make it seem. We can draft two WRs and address our OL and running game.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,326
    Quote Originally Posted by lvbronx View Post
    The past doesn't equal the future. An important concept "smart" poker players understand is, it doesn't matter how much money you've put into the pot, you play the hand based on the circumstances as they are now, not how much you've already put in the pot up to this point in time. If a good player is available you take that player instead of saying, "Well...since we drafted a lot of other players in the past at the same position so we'll pass".

    We've added a RB and OL in FA. We lost both DT and Sanders and replaced only one while shifting to an offense that prefers 3 WRs and not 2 like we did when DT and Sanders were here. Plus drafting two WRs in the first two rounds doesn't mean we can't address those positions with our later picks or in FA and trades. It isn't either/or as you make it seem. We can draft two WRs and address our OL and running game.
    Incorrect. All markets where assets are acquired with some form of currency or collateral, whatever that may be, the past is in fact the single biggest indicator as to what is more than likely going to happen in the future. Obviously there are outliers, as I pointed out, but the past is used as the measuring stick for negotiation, price setting, and future market moves, fact.

    Also Poker is a horrible example, and the only major contributing factor to a move that is out of the ordinary like advertised in this thread is a sever shift to either end of the supply and demand spectrum, and I think you could argue that the supply here could honestly go either way. Teams might say let's wait on wideout because we could get a really talented guy later, but that might not be able to be said for another position.

    Either way you look at it, drafting the same position in the first two rounds with such limited high value assets is dumb in any business setting no matter how you try to slice it up, and that is why it has rarely EVER been done in the NFL. And our situation is not one where we have the luxury to be making such moves with the way the roster is built, and the way the other talent will shape up at those two picks. I think Fangio would have a heart attack if Elway made such idiotic moves.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    4,778
    I will be Mad if that WR is Ruggs, I will be surprised and happy if it is Jeudy or Lamb. (Even if that means a trade up).
    https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/s4pltBb35iBlrpYyfA6PTSXU4bI=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2924184/cj.0.gif WHEC-724

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    26
    So surprised I would say it's zero chance of happening

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,985
    I don’t think even Al Davis has picked two WRs first. We need a talent upgrade at WR, yes— but we are not completely depleted at the position. I still like Hamilton and Patrick a lot and I think they can get better. I wouldn’t mind a late round pick on someone like James Proche, Isaiah Hodgins, or Quez Watkins though.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mile High Stadium
    Posts
    9,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    If Denver ended up with Ruggs and Mims or Ruggs and Shenault, or Jeudy and Mims, etc., are you mad, surprised or happy?
    I wouldn’t be mad, I’d be disappointed. We need a receiver, tackle, center, ILB who can cover or a nickel safety/ LB , and a cornerback. After we fill those holes we could use another WR. If we go receiver in round one, I would hope we add the best value at CB, C, T, or S/LB. So yeah I would be surprised and mad, because we used a 1st rd pick on a receiving tight end last year, a 2nd rd pick on Sutton and a 4th rd pick on Hamilton in 2018. We need to replace Emmanuel Sanders who kept defenses honest with his speed.
    Fant and Hamilton have to step up their games in their 2nd and 3rd years in the league. Patrick is a good back to Sutton and maybe Winfree improves.
    Last edited by 58Miller; 04-20-2020 at 12:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

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