Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2017 College Prospects Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57 ... 67, 68, 69  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Counselor


Joined: 31 Jan 2017
Posts: 1852
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A surprise pick at 1.20 is Adoree Jackson. You heard it here first
_________________
In reference to concern about Joshua Dobbs' Knees

48 1/2ers wrote:
Ostriches have inverted knees and they're pretty athletic...


GIF of Ostrich Running Here...

The Wheat Grass Shooting Hippies made me get rid of it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AnAngryAmerican


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 19417
Location: Loveland, CO
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
jsthomp2007 wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
candyman93 wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
jsthomp2007 wrote:
I have heard the Broncos were thinking about trading back with Cleveland for their 33rd overall pick. Could the Broncos pick up Even Engram at 33rd?

If Joe Thomas is part of the deal I'd be all over that, like a fat guy all over a seafood buffet.


33 and Joe Thomas would rate JT as a 3rd round pick. We'd probably trade up to select a QB as well. So it wouldn't make sense to dump a starting LT if you want a rookie QB.

Here's one, it's a pipe dream but you never know.

Denver trades:
#20
#51
A player (Shaq Barrett? Emmanuel Sanders?)

Cleveland trades:
#12
Joe Thomas

At #12 Denver drafts Christian McCaffery. The two picks we give up in exchange for #12 are roughly equal according to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, meaning the player we send to Cleveland would have be roughly equal as well. A younger player at a position of need for the Browns could be enough to convince them to part ways with an older Joe Thomas.


I am thinking you could have McCaffrey at #33. Why not trade #20 and trade back to get #33 and another second round pick. Then you get McCaffrey, Evan Engram, and Malik McDowell. I am not sure if you can swing getting Joe Thomas in that deal...maybe Shaq Barrett and a future pick?


If McCaffrey is still available after the first 15 picks that would be a major surprise. Talk of him going top 10 is all around, the helium on him is that crazy. Personally I'd avoid paying to move up for him but the idea of addressing LT & using assets to move up at a key spot or two is sound - given how short RB shelf lives tend to be I don't like paying there. I agree with B67 that we need 3-4 2018 starters from this draft and while McCaffrey is a special talent RB is the easiest position to find talent and the one with perhaps the shortest lifespan.

It's flawed to look at McCaffrey as a RB in the same mold as, say, CJ Anderson. Because ordinarily I would agree with you, traditional RBs are not a premium position that is worth paying that big of a price for. But McCaffrey is player that defenses will have to account for on every play, he can be lined up just about anywhere in the formation as well as contribute as KR and PR, something we desperately need.


I completely agree with you on McCaffrey skill set being unique. It's just that RB careers are so short even for outside guys when they get used regularly. Wear and tear or injury are like death and taxes. And if it only meant 4-5 years of peak production I'd be fine with that. But even that's a stretch. The lifespan of "weapon" mismatch type hybrid guys is so short, often 2-3 years of tantalizing brilliance mixed with shortened careers. Maybe he is the exception but paying to move up and losing Day 2 picks is a major mistake. The 20 pick would be a huge risk by itself. Adding to it makes it a no brainer to pass IMO if Day 2 picks are needed.

Mccaffrey looks like Reggie Bush. The elite USC version. Who would have been a better fit for today's era. But injuries and wear and tear shortened his peak. Made him the lesser version. Why I don't value RB in Rd 1 unless they can withstand wear and tear and even then I hesitate.

Darren Sproles has long been one of my under-the-radar favorite players in the league. I see McCaffrey as more that type of player than Reggie Bush. McCaffrey has better field vision than Bush, he has better instincts, he takes contact better and has a higher football IQ. Again, all like Sproles. And I say that as someone who always liked Reggie Bush, even when he was at U$C and in New Orleans, two teams I abhor.

I almost hate myself for being in that whatever it takes to get McCaffrey camp because it makes me feel like one of the moron suburbanites who listens to The Fan and KOA, reads the plagiarists at Mile High Report and hears the name and says, "ooo sign me up!"

But just like with Kyle Shanahan, who was supported by the same lot (until the plagiarists changed their mind and fell in love with Vance the minute after he was hired) I have to trust my gut and my knowledge of the game and when I see McCaffrey I see a guy who can do damage in SO many ways in the NFL if he is on a team who can figure out how to use him.

So, oooo sign me up!
_________________
big_palooka:

bhslinebacker wrote:
AAA is right, as he usually is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3360
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AnAngryAmerican wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
jsthomp2007 wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
candyman93 wrote:
AnAngryAmerican wrote:
jsthomp2007 wrote:
I have heard the Broncos were thinking about trading back with Cleveland for their 33rd overall pick. Could the Broncos pick up Even Engram at 33rd?

If Joe Thomas is part of the deal I'd be all over that, like a fat guy all over a seafood buffet.


33 and Joe Thomas would rate JT as a 3rd round pick. We'd probably trade up to select a QB as well. So it wouldn't make sense to dump a starting LT if you want a rookie QB.

Here's one, it's a pipe dream but you never know.

Denver trades:
#20
#51
A player (Shaq Barrett? Emmanuel Sanders?)

Cleveland trades:
#12
Joe Thomas

At #12 Denver drafts Christian McCaffery. The two picks we give up in exchange for #12 are roughly equal according to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, meaning the player we send to Cleveland would have be roughly equal as well. A younger player at a position of need for the Browns could be enough to convince them to part ways with an older Joe Thomas.


I am thinking you could have McCaffrey at #33. Why not trade #20 and trade back to get #33 and another second round pick. Then you get McCaffrey, Evan Engram, and Malik McDowell. I am not sure if you can swing getting Joe Thomas in that deal...maybe Shaq Barrett and a future pick?


If McCaffrey is still available after the first 15 picks that would be a major surprise. Talk of him going top 10 is all around, the helium on him is that crazy. Personally I'd avoid paying to move up for him but the idea of addressing LT & using assets to move up at a key spot or two is sound - given how short RB shelf lives tend to be I don't like paying there. I agree with B67 that we need 3-4 2018 starters from this draft and while McCaffrey is a special talent RB is the easiest position to find talent and the one with perhaps the shortest lifespan.

It's flawed to look at McCaffrey as a RB in the same mold as, say, CJ Anderson. Because ordinarily I would agree with you, traditional RBs are not a premium position that is worth paying that big of a price for. But McCaffrey is player that defenses will have to account for on every play, he can be lined up just about anywhere in the formation as well as contribute as KR and PR, something we desperately need.


I completely agree with you on McCaffrey skill set being unique. It's just that RB careers are so short even for outside guys when they get used regularly. Wear and tear or injury are like death and taxes. And if it only meant 4-5 years of peak production I'd be fine with that. But even that's a stretch. The lifespan of "weapon" mismatch type hybrid guys is so short, often 2-3 years of tantalizing brilliance mixed with shortened careers. Maybe he is the exception but paying to move up and losing Day 2 picks is a major mistake. The 20 pick would be a huge risk by itself. Adding to it makes it a no brainer to pass IMO if Day 2 picks are needed.

Mccaffrey looks like Reggie Bush. The elite USC version. Who would have been a better fit for today's era. But injuries and wear and tear shortened his peak. Made him the lesser version. Why I don't value RB in Rd 1 unless they can withstand wear and tear and even then I hesitate.

Darren Sproles has long been one of my under-the-radar favorite players in the league. I see McCaffrey as more that type of player than Reggie Bush. McCaffrey has better field vision than Bush, he has better instincts, he takes contact better and has a higher football IQ. Again, all like Sproles. And I say that as someone who always liked Reggie Bush, even when he was at U$C and in New Orleans, two teams I abhor.

I almost hate myself for being in that whatever it takes to get McCaffrey camp because it makes me feel like one of the moron suburbanites who listens to The Fan and KOA, reads the plagiarists at Mile High Report and hears the name and says, "ooo sign me up!"

But just like with Kyle Shanahan, who was supported by the same lot (until the plagiarists changed their mind and fell in love with Vance the minute after he was hired) I have to trust my gut and my knowledge of the game and when I see McCaffrey I see a guy who can do damage in SO many ways in the NFL if he is on a team who can figure out how to use him.

So, oooo sign me up!


Sproles' longevity is due to 1 simple reason - he isn't used much on O. Over 168 games he's had less than 1200 touches on O. He hasn't carried the ball more than 100x in a season, and had 80-90 on 4 of his 12 seasons, more like 50-60 or fewer for the rest. He's had 70-80 catches for 3 seasons, fewer in the rest. In only 1 season did he see 160+ touches. He's been used on ST obviously, but a guy who's used 10x or less per game on O (unless it was mostly catches, since receptions usually create more downfield yards), that's not worth a top 20 pick in a loaded RB draft. That's my concern. If McCaffrey is used in a Sproles role with only that level of volume (even at its highest rates), it's a gadget/outlet complementary piece. Not as a centerpiece.

I used Bush because he was one of the few home run RB's who had special outside skills who was used more as a workhorse for a 2-3 year run - he quickly broke down with that increase in use. Bush's size profile is eerily similar height-weight wise (5'11, 200). If you look at guys who are incredible in space as difference-makers, who comes up? Dion Lewis, Theo Riddick, Chris Thompson and Bilal Powell all had similar or more catches to Sproles, top 10 in RB receptions (the big workhorse pass catching RB's are also there, but they're built very differently, obviously). All the guys I mentioned above are notable because they're also used in a Sproles-like fashion for their careers - and when Lewis / Riddick were increased in their usage beyond that, injury followed shortly after.

Even Danny Woodhead broke down when he started to see a lot more than just 3rd down RB usage (2013 was the first year they used him more than 160x in a season, they then repeated that in 2015 - he missed almost all of 2014 & 2016, in the year following the spike in usage) - and you can argue that Woodhead's skill set was even more special in its breadth, if not the level of skill for each area (inside running was proven, great receiver, clearly not the home run threat). And Woodhead's frame at 5'8 200+ is actually bulkier than McCaffrey at 5'11 200 - maybe McCaffrey can bulk up without losing agility, but we can't bank on that. Powell hasn't been given the workhorse treatment for more than 2-3 games yet, so he's been relatively healthy. But, if you look hard at the type of RB's with outside skills McCaffrey has, invariably they break down with more use, or they remain utilized sparingly to keep them on the field. That's the concern. If McCaffrey is deployed for 10 or fewer touches per game on O, unless he's a 10+ yard a touch guy (i.e. mostly WR), then he's a complement guy, and not a centerpiece. If he's used heavily, then breaking down is a big concern at his size, history has been really unkind to that profile when you increase their workload beyond complementary-back levels. Maybe McCaffrey breaks the mold, but that's a big maybe. When you pay a 3rd-4th round price, it's a no-brainer (I say that because that's the earliest any of these guys get picked nowadays who aren't bellcows). McCaffrey's skill set is special enough I get why he's getting 1st round love - but the risk is there with increased usage at his size, no matter how special the skillset is.

At 1.20 I'd get why he'd still be attractive to our team fit, but even then it's a risk for the above reasons. Moving up to get him where we have to give up a Day 2 pick? Easy pass.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncosFan2010


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 3793
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, great post Broncofan. I was totally on board with McCaffrey at 1.20 but am now having second thoughts. Persuasion through statistical example is a breath of fresh air on this forum.

I still would not have serious qualms with drafting him 1.20, but using our top 100 picks to deal up for him will leave me agitated. We need numerous starting caliber players in this draft. We don't have the luxury of trading up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
germ-x


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 9203
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

McCaffrey's usage is and has always been the issue. He's not a workhorse back and should not be used as such or he's going to wear down. I've said in the past that I see him as an 8-10 carry guy per game who gets 4-6 targets (maybe more) in the passing game.

That puts him between 200-250 touches a season. If there are concerns that he can't handle that type of workload then he probably shouldn't be considered at 1.20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3360
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

germ-x wrote:
McCaffrey's usage is and has always been the issue. He's not a workhorse back and should not be used as such or he's going to wear down. I've said in the past that I see him as an 8-10 carry guy per game who gets 4-6 targets (maybe more) in the passing game.

That puts him between 200-250 touches a season. If there are concerns that he can't handle that type of workload then he probably shouldn't be considered at 1.20.


Not just handling it, but the risk of injury to guys his size. And that concern is at 1.20, but at least there it's a proposition where you see arguments for/against. If we have to give up a Day 2 pick (or more) to get him at an earlier slot than 1.20, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
broncos67


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 24108
Location: Conshohocken
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
germ-x wrote:
McCaffrey's usage is and has always been the issue. He's not a workhorse back and should not be used as such or he's going to wear down. I've said in the past that I see him as an 8-10 carry guy per game who gets 4-6 targets (maybe more) in the passing game.

That puts him between 200-250 touches a season. If there are concerns that he can't handle that type of workload then he probably shouldn't be considered at 1.20.


Not just handling it, but the risk of injury to guys his size. And that concern is at 1.20, but at least there it's a proposition where you see arguments for/against. If we have to give up a Day 2 pick (or more) to get him at an earlier slot than 1.20, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


I agree. I've actually been souring more on McCaffrey as time goes by. To be honest, I think a seam busting TE mismatch is more of a need for this offense, considering both Anderson and Booker have receiving capabilities. We do need a dynamic backfield weapon, but I also think Curtis Samuel or Alvin Kamara could be that, and don't require the same draft capital.
_________________


Thanks, Tzimisce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncosFan2010


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 3793
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I agree. I've actually been souring more on McCaffrey as time goes by. To be honest, I think a seam busting TE mismatch is more of a need for this offense, considering both Anderson and Booker have receiving capabilities. We do need a dynamic backfield weapon, but I also think Curtis Samuel or Alvin Kamara could be that, and don't require the same draft capital.


Honestly, if we want a dynamic backfield weapon, and don't want to use premium draft capital, I would really love for us to target Joe Williams with the R6 pick from Tennessee.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/joe-williams?id=2557936

Some big red flags, and a need to improve blocking and catching, but he has elusiveness and speed that CJ and especially Booker just lack physically. I just really like him as a high-upside pick. See if a NFL TC and a strong coach/veteran presence help him shore up maturity and dedication (As blocking falls under maturity/dedication many times) and see what you get.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Counselor


Joined: 31 Jan 2017
Posts: 1852
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McNichols or Tarik Cohen could be later picks that add a receiving element.
_________________
In reference to concern about Joshua Dobbs' Knees

48 1/2ers wrote:
Ostriches have inverted knees and they're pretty athletic...


GIF of Ostrich Running Here...

The Wheat Grass Shooting Hippies made me get rid of it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
broncos67


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 24108
Location: Conshohocken
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reuben Foster failed a drug test at the combine.

I hope he falls right into our laps please and thank you.
_________________


Thanks, Tzimisce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3360
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

broncos67 wrote:
Reuben Foster failed a drug test at the combine.

I hope he falls right into our laps please and thank you.


As much as I see O as a crying need, if he fell to us at 1.20 it would be a no-brainer to take him. Literally a Pro Bowl ceiling, glue-of-the-D quarterback. Before the whole Combine mess he was a surefire, top 10 pick, and there was talk of going as high as 2 or 3 overall. THAT good, given that ILB is devalued.

I would then start looking at TE at 2.51 if we couldn't find a way to move up to get one of the top 3 T's left in late Rd 1 / early Rd 2. And if SF drafts a LT of the future then see about our 4th round pick and a 2018 5th for Joe Staley (but only way that happens is if SF drafts a future LT).

Teams made the same mistake letting La'el Collins fall 2 years ago (remember it was either draft him by Rd 3 or he wouldn't sign, and everyone passed). Passing on Foster is just as big of a mistake, if not bigger.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8642
Location: USA
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
Reuben Foster failed a drug test at the combine.

I hope he falls right into our laps please and thank you.


As much as I see O as a crying need, if he fell to us at 1.20 it would be a no-brainer to take him. Literally a Pro Bowl ceiling, glue-of-the-D quarterback. Before the whole Combine mess he was a surefire, top 10 pick, and there was talk of going as high as 2 or 3 overall. THAT good, given that ILB is devalued.

I would then start looking at TE at 2.51 if we couldn't find a way to move up to get one of the top 3 T's left in late Rd 1 / early Rd 2. And if SF drafts a LT of the future then see about our 4th round pick and a 2018 5th for Joe Staley (but only way that happens is if SF drafts a future LT).

Teams made the same mistake letting La'el Collins fall 2 years ago (remember it was either draft him by Rd 3 or he wouldn't sign, and everyone passed). Passing on Foster is just as big of a mistake, if not bigger.


Alas you could be drafting the next Aaron Hernandez.
_________________
Ninja stealth muggers in the Bellagio has left me in a state of congitive disonance...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3360
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jsthomp2007 wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
Reuben Foster failed a drug test at the combine.

I hope he falls right into our laps please and thank you.


As much as I see O as a crying need, if he fell to us at 1.20 it would be a no-brainer to take him. Literally a Pro Bowl ceiling, glue-of-the-D quarterback. Before the whole Combine mess he was a surefire, top 10 pick, and there was talk of going as high as 2 or 3 overall. THAT good, given that ILB is devalued.

I would then start looking at TE at 2.51 if we couldn't find a way to move up to get one of the top 3 T's left in late Rd 1 / early Rd 2. And if SF drafts a LT of the future then see about our 4th round pick and a 2018 5th for Joe Staley (but only way that happens is if SF drafts a future LT).

Teams made the same mistake letting La'el Collins fall 2 years ago (remember it was either draft him by Rd 3 or he wouldn't sign, and everyone passed). Passing on Foster is just as big of a mistake, if not bigger.


Alas you could be drafting the next Aaron Hernandez.


Foster had a clean HS & NCAA career until the Combine. He got into a verbal spat with a MRI tech. He had a dilute urine sample. Hot headed and foolish for the Combine ep? Yes. Worrisome for his long term outlook? Hardly.

Read on Hernandez @ Florida - here's a short summary. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sports/ncaafootball/hernandez-among-many-arrested-at-florida-in-the-meyer-years.html

Hernandez lived the thug life and got violent at least 2x in college (assault and a shooting that later he was found out to be a major party in by his "associates" but which he escaped unscathed in a lawless program) and hung out with known criminals. He revelled in the thug life.

So...not seeing the similarities. Not even in the same stratosphere of risk.

Brandon Marshall (receiver) would be a better comp if ppl really think this is an issue (I don't but at least ppl would be comparing apples to apples issue wise). Same profile personality wise...with the same talent or even better ceiling wise.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AnAngryAmerican


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 19417
Location: Loveland, CO
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Counselor - you can't have a giant .gif like that in your signature. Read the rules.

-----------------------------------------

And Broncofan I get what you're saying but it seems as if you are equating touches to production. If McCoy can figure out how to use McCaffrey - and I know everyone in Broncos Country thinks McCoy is the greatest OC in the history of the NFL, but I'm taking a wait-and-see approach - then he can be a weapon even when he's not getting the ball. He's the kind of player a defense must account for on every play and the kind of player around whom they must game plan.

However, I understand and agree with your point about McCaffrey's potential to breakdown relatively early in his career and he being a potential injury risk.
_________________
big_palooka:

bhslinebacker wrote:
AAA is right, as he usually is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3360
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AnAngryAmerican wrote:
Counselor - you can't have a giant .gif like that in your signature. Read the rules.

-----------------------------------------

And Broncofan I get what you're saying but it seems as if you are equating touches to production. If McCoy can figure out how to use McCaffrey - and I know everyone in Broncos Country thinks McCoy is the greatest OC in the history of the NFL, but I'm taking a wait-and-see approach - then he can be a weapon even when he's not getting the ball. He's the kind of player a defense must account for on every play and the kind of player around whom they must game plan.

However, I understand and agree with your point about McCaffrey's potential to breakdown relatively early in his career and he being a potential injury risk.


No worries. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the first outcome is likely - it's just that the only way guys with McCaffrey's skill set and size have survived long-term even for a 5-year rookie contract is by teams limiting their use. That isn't any way you can justify a pick even at 1.20 for that type of limited usage. That's not to say I think that's what would happen.

However, once you increase their use, RB's his size break down...and not to be callous, but more importantly, break down pretty quickly. Tiki Barber is the last guy I remember close to his size (and he is actually 1 inch shorter and 5-10 lbs heavier, so even then it's a bit of a stretch to say similar size) who held up for 5-6 seasons of peak production with 250+ touches. And he literally retired at his peak because his body was so abused (his own words). And again....that was 11 years ago. NFL RB careers have plummeted since that era. Scary when you think about all the great scat backs who make a living on the outside. So then the pick is more than justifiable if he's used enough in space, but longevity is very much a real issue with guys his size with increased usage.

Even today, great weapons like Riddick, Lewis, Woodhead and Chris Thompson, absolute passing game matchup mismatches, could not stand up to even 1 full season of heavy usage (and Riddick/Lewis/Thompson fit the "not big enough to be a 3-down guy" profile, Woodhead was actually pretty thick at 5'8 200+, same weight and 3 inches shorter is a major difference in bulk). Another 2015 outside pass-catching RB weapon, TB's Charles Sims, broke down too (1 inch taller, 10 lbs more, I didn't include him because i think his upright style is a bigger risk than with the others, but should mention him to be complete). That's eye-opening.

Don't get me wrong, McCaffrey could break the mold - he's that special skill wise. But size-wise there's a mega-huge red flag about longevity. Banking on him breaking the mold is a big risk at 1.20. If Foster is there, I go Foster every day over McCaffrey and any T. But if all the top 12 talents are gone, and he's there at 1.20, I see the argument. But that's so unlikely now, and having to trade a Day 2 pick when we absolutely need T, 3-4 DE, 3rd WR, TE, and ILB not just now, but long-term ? You see why I just can't see it as justifiable barring clairvoyant ability.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57 ... 67, 68, 69  Next
Page 56 of 69

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group