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

BPA vs. Need, Locking In - Elway's Draft Strategy Change?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jolly red giant


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 406
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clearly draft day 2 is a problem.

2013 - Ball a bust - Webster was decent.

2014 - Latimer not so good - Schofield as back-up

2015 - Sambrilo I think was brought in specifically for Kubiak's ZBS and couldn't hack it. Elway seems to think that if healthy he can compete for a spot. Heuerman was expected to contribute, suffered an injury and doesn't seem to have ever recovered.

2016 - Gotsis was always a project and his future has still to be determined - Simmons is a potential future starter at safety.

Some poor decisions, some bad luck and a couple who could still produce. Here is hoping Walker, Henderson and Langley break the streak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jolly red giant wrote:
Clearly draft day 2 is a problem.

2013 - Ball a bust - Webster was decent.

2014 - Latimer not so good - Schofield as back-up

2015 - Sambrilo I think was brought in specifically for Kubiak's ZBS and couldn't hack it. Elway seems to think that if healthy he can compete for a spot. Heuerman was expected to contribute, suffered an injury and doesn't seem to have ever recovered.

2016 - Gotsis was always a project and his future has still to be determined - Simmons is a potential future starter at safety.

Some poor decisions, some bad luck and a couple who could still produce. Here is hoping Walker, Henderson and Langley break the streak.


Totally agreed.

What I think is now becoming apparent is that 2 factors may explain this struggle:

1. Elway is clearly locking in to some guys, no matter how the board falls (again, Elway confirmed this to Renck re: Bolles/Walker, tried to trade up for both, wasn't needed, in his words - he got lucky). Judging by the Bolles/Walker attempts to trade up when he didn't have to, one can conclude that Elway's valuation system is different from the rest of the league. That's not necessarily bad, although locking in should really only apply when there's a guy who is head and shoulders above the rest of his peer group, and the price isn't insane. Still, by itself it's not a problem by itself, but it is if it leads to huge reaches (I think both Sambrailo & Gotsis qualify, whether Gostsis improves or not, it's still early so he could, Sambrailo, well, I can't say I'm optimistic after 2 years of his tape), then it's problem. I don't think Walker was a huge reach, but I don't think he was someone you need to move up for (same for Bolles at 1.20), and the draft bore that out. Then you add #2....

2. Elway can't resist to go for the home run pick - even when the floor might be a complete bust. Rd 1, Elway doesn't have to look far to find home-run ceiling guys - and part of what makes them Rd 1 picks is that their floors are very high too. And then when you get to Day 3, well, the miss rate is so high as a baseline, it's OK to miss completely, and with Elway's approach, when you hit, you hit big. So on Day 1, the pool of talent protects more against busts, and the day 3 pool is so hit or miss it's not big deal. But the hit rate should be way better than 0/6, or 1-2/10, if we get Simmons to hit (seems good so far). 2016-2017 is way too early to call (2017 obv).

Anyways, that's my observation in #2, Elway only confirmed #1 by his own words this year, so it seems worth talking about approach wise. It never really made sense why he was so good Day 3, good Day 1, and awful Day 2 (realizing small sample sizes still apply, but that's a stark run of failure), maybe the 2 factors above do.
_________________
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.


Last edited by Broncofan on Wed May 03, 2017 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jolly red giant


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 406
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would agree - I think Elway picks a guy he expects to be solid with #1 - tries to hit a home run on day 2 - and then looks for solid value on day 3.

So far he has struck out on his attempt to hit a home run (with the exception of Wolfe which seems like a lifetime ago now). Now he can be criticised for trying to trade up to get Walker - but a lot of variables can come into play over why a player drops. Elway might have tried to jump 10 places to get him and if he failed and someone else drafted him nine spots up we wouldn't even know about the attempted trade. It may have been a case that he had ten picks and knew he would be able to keep 10 draftees on the roster so tried to utilise one of them to get the guy he wanted. Furthermore, Elway was lucky that he didn't do the trade - and often a bit of luck is important. Elway was very lucky when Osweiler jumped to the Texans (can you just imagine the mess we would be in) - he may have used the pick he got Butt with to move up - and Butt could turn out to be a gem - he may also be very lucky to actually have got Walker, Henderson or Langley where he did.

Is this the best strategy - I don't know - all we can say is that it hasn't worked so far. Maybe a new approach is needed - but the one that needs to be persuaded about that is Elway (and I doubt we will have any influence on him). Then again he might hit three home runs this year with Walker, Henderson and Langley - and then praise will be heaped upon him (even if Bolles is a bust).

Personally I would love to see Bolles become at least serviceable at LT - that Walker develops into a solid DE (I am not even looking for Malik 2) - that Henderson becomes a good KR/PR - that Langley becomes a serviceable DB - the Butt becomes a TE threat and that Kelly becomes a franchise QB (he appears to have the biggest potential and talent of all the picks if he can get his head in the game). This would then be a monumentally successful draft - even without Kelly it would be a big step forward from where we are now with holes filled across the roster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jolly red giant wrote:
I would agree - I think Elway picks a guy he expects to be solid with #1 - tries to hit a home run on day 2 - and then looks for solid value on day 3.

So far he has struck out on his attempt to hit a home run (with the exception of Wolfe which seems like a lifetime ago now). Now he can be criticised for trying to trade up to get Walker - but a lot of variables can come into play over why a player drops. Elway might have tried to jump 10 places to get him and if he failed and someone else drafted him nine spots up we wouldn't even know about the attempted trade. It may have been a case that he had ten picks and knew he would be able to keep 10 draftees on the roster so tried to utilise one of them to get the guy he wanted. Furthermore, Elway was lucky that he didn't do the trade - and often a bit of luck is important. Elway was very lucky when Osweiler jumped to the Texans (can you just imagine the mess we would be in) - he may have used the pick he got Butt with to move up - and Butt could turn out to be a gem - he may also be very lucky to actually have got Walker, Henderson or Langley where he did.

Is this the best strategy - I don't know - all we can say is that it hasn't worked so far. Maybe a new approach is needed - but the one that needs to be persuaded about that is Elway (and I doubt we will have any influence on him). Then again he might hit three home runs this year with Walker, Henderson and Langley - and then praise will be heaped upon him (even if Bolles is a bust).

Personally I would love to see Bolles become at least serviceable at LT - that Walker develops into a solid DE (I am not even looking for Malik 2) - that Henderson becomes a good KR/PR - that Langley becomes a serviceable DB - the Butt becomes a TE threat and that Keely becomes a franchise QB (he appears to have the biggest potential and talent of all the picks if he can get his head in the game). This would then be a monumentally successful draft - even without Kelly it would be a big step forward from where we are now with holes filled across the roster.


I actually think he tries for the home run on Day 2 and 3 - it's just that the pool of Day 3 guys is so hit-and-miss anyways, that's actually entirely justified.

Re: Day 1, I think if need doesn't overrrule BPA, Elway still goes huge ceiling - the pool of talent is just so good in the top 30 (or 25, or 40, or 50 in some years) - you can get pretty solid high-floor, high-ceiling prospects. Maybe not elite-ceiling (like in the top 5, or this year, I think it was 12-deep - Garrett in a tier by himself and 11-12 others), but high-ceiling guys. Then if you factor position of need, Elway can sometimes veer away from the HR philosophy - I think Sly Williams was a clear case of that. But you take his biggest Rd 1 hits, it was guys with huge ceilings and I'd argue high floors - but they fell for off-the-field issues (the DUI that wasn't with Roby, and the real DUI with Ray). Obviously, we have no idea on where Bolles fits in.

Anyways, we now have 5 full years of draft to judge from, and we have new hard evidence (Elway's words and his Day 1 pick) that shed more light on need/BPA and locking in, so all good to discuss. I mean, what else are we going to do until TC begins? B)
_________________
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
broncofan48


Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 2097
Location: Central Montana
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I'm not thrilled about Bolles all the reports of Fosters shoulders is making me feel better about not getting him.

Schefter said some teams didn't clear him medically believing his shoulder could give out at any time
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

broncofan48 wrote:
While I'm not thrilled about Bolles all the reports of Fosters shoulders is making me feel better about not getting him.

Schefter said some teams didn't clear him medically believing his shoulder could give out at any time


It definitely makes it more palatable to have passed on Foster. But the curious part? The concern comes from his April recheck, and apparently it was his physical exam (ESPN 2nd link).


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/03/49ers-cleared-reuben-fosters-shoulder-but-some-teams-didnt/

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19301835/reuben-foster-shoulder-led-drop-nfl-draft

Why is that important? Well, he had surgery sometime around Feb. 13 (first reported). He had the recheck April 11, so 8 weeks or so. That's way too soon to know if the surgery's taken, unless they've done a specialized MRI that shows the tendon(s - more than 1, up to 4 muscles/tendons form the RC) didn't heal properly - but that literally wouldn't have been known, with the early April recheck, unless a special type of MRI was done in April (the Feb MRI was kind of pointless, ironically enough, for all the PR circus it created).

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/orthopaedic-surgery/specialty-areas/shoulder/treatments-procedures/failed-rotator-cuff-repairs.html

The key times are the 3 months it takes for the tendon to be firmly attached, they don't start strengthening exercises until after it's able to take the stress (so about 4 weeks after the recheck), and then about 6-9 months for full healing (usually by 9 months they feel fully recovered, but already playing by 6 months). And that's if it was a full tear. If it was a partial tear, then it's like Cam Newton's original ETA (4 months). My guess is it's obviously the full repair, the partial cleanup wouldn't scare teams off.

But, the April re-check would have been at the 2-month mark, so unless the tendon(s) repaired was found by specalized-MRI to be not attached or re-torn, well, it's impossible to know so soon. The thing is, if there was such evidence, then no one should have touched him at all - not SF, not NO - because re-operation would be a given, and he'd be out until Oct/Nov at earliest (the success rates are still really high in contact non-throwing sports - throwing sports like QB or baseball, it's a death sentence). If the NFL teams got worried because he had pain or stiffness at the April exam, that's actually still expected. Or just that it was major surgery, which is fair. But if they saw an actual complication, that should have been info that scared away every team.

Foster didn't get the late Feb MRI because of the tech incident, but even then, it would have been only 3 weeks post-surgery, so I don't know how they would have figured anything out (because the tendon doesn't typically attach until 6 weeks anyways). The most likely reason without seeing the full report would be that Foster had pain/stiffness on the April exam (2 months post surgery). And usually they need a dye-injected-into-joint MRI, not just a plain MRI, because of how poor the accuracy is after surgery (it's no longer an area that's supposed to look perfect, the surgery done changes what you expect to see while it's still healing). And if such a test showed a re-tear, or a non-union, then there's no way any team should want to take him at 31, like both SF & NO both wanted to (remember, NO had him on the phone when Lynch traded up). Conflicting perspectives, to say the least.

The shoulder was likely a better reason why he fell to 31 than the MRI tech incident. And there's still risk, but if there wasn't risk, he wouldn't have fallen out of the top 10. Still, it does give a better reason to pass....for now. Time will tell ultimately, given we're still looking at this in the long run.
_________________
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.


Last edited by Broncofan on Wed May 03, 2017 10:30 pm; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Counselor


Joined: 31 Jan 2017
Posts: 1933
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It will be interesting to see who Elway locks in on next year.
_________________
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
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Counselor wrote:
It will be interesting to see who Elway locks in on next year.


If it's the 32 pick, I won't complain. Laughing

(Wishful thinking that we get there, but it had to be said).
_________________
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
AKRNA


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 6914
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would seem pretty dicey to me to spend a #1 pick on a defensive thumper with shoulder issues.

Atwaters a perfect example. His production dropped drastically when he started having shoulder problems. He never really improved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 12223
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: day 2 draft strategy,


It's worth pointing out that I think late round 2 is a bit of a rough spot


I always feel like the structure of most drafts is

- About 20 guys that are slam dunk first round picks
- The next 25-30 guys are fringe first rounders or slam dunk early second rounders
- Then it becomes a bit of a crapshoot with late second rounders not being much different to like 4th/5th round picks


This leads to a lot of teams reaching in the late second
_________________
Victor Cruz Pun wrote:
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
Isn't CJ Anderson one of those dudes that replaced Terrell Davis? If so top 5 RB of all time.


Fify.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AKRNA wrote:
It would seem pretty dicey to me to spend a #1 pick on a defensive thumper with shoulder issues.

Atwaters a perfect example. His production dropped drastically when he started having shoulder problems. He never really improved.


Very fair example of potential risk with that type of player - but the success rate of non-throwing athletes who get RC surgery, while admittedly small, is actually really good beyond the first season (and even if a 2nd stabilizing surgery is needed). Shaq Lawson is the most recent example of major RC surgery (Ray Lewis is the most famous) - 6 months after RC reconstructive surgery he played at his pre-injury level - the big debate with him at the 2016 Draft was that he hadn't had surgery yet...so when he needed it after re-aggravating the injury (which was highly likely) in May 2016, the 6-month recovery timeframe started. And the speculation on when he'd return ran right up until late August - 8-12 weeks later. Because until then no full rehab starts. That sounds really familiar to Foster's case, given nothing can be known by a simple exam at the 8 week mark.

Now, while Lawson is the most recent example (and younger patients do better in general), the surgery is a death sentence if you need to throw (or arm above shoulder level like tennis/golf) with that arm if it's a full repair. A cleanup is OK. Mostly baseball players get it. Golfers & tennis players too. When studies look at recreational users, the recovery rates are excellent - 80-90 percent, but that's a low bar (returning to normal life pain-free). It doesn't tell us about elite athletes. When you look at the throwing-arm sports, the outcomes are horrific. But, when you don't have to throw, the numbers are actually really, really good.

The biggest pool of non throwing athletes who need surgery actually comes from elite rugby (pro / international) players - tackling at high speed just like NFL, similar mechanism of injury and types of RC injuries seen as football. What do we know there with top performers (casual athletes will always get a bigger rate of success reported it's return to elite levels of play that counts)? Well the best studies on elite rugby players show that 11/11 return to prior level of play in 6 months with 1st surgery and even if a 2nd surgery (stabilization procedure) needed , 6/6 returned back to prior level of play in 6 months. And all were playing at same level the next year (the studies only went 18-24 months post surgery). Rugby is a great comp for open field thumping and trench warfare plus guys built like Foster and young (average age in studies was 25.6 yrs), but who don't need to throw much, if at all. And RC injuries are really common there. So what do we know re: elite athletes?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895299/ (11/11 full return, elite athletes, same age)

(And if a 2nd surgery to stabilize is needed, which again, is by no means clear, but if it is...):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724621/pdf/v037p00179.pdf (6/6 same class of players...note that it's with older techniques, too - classic open RC surgery terrible for throwing motion, modern one still not much better to maintain elite throwing skills, but non-throwing ability, less invasive surgery seems to work well - again, small #'s, but excellent results).

Now it's fair to point out those are still small numbers and many report not feeling 100 percent up to 9 months later. Lawson even said he wasn't sure the day he took to the field how he would do. So absolutely there's risk. A repeat surgery and it's likely he's out until November so PUP at best. Again though if there wasn't Foster wouldn't have fallen from the top 10. And the long term outlook we know from the sport that might be even more brutal than football is excellent long term, but you need the 6 months if it's a full reconstruction and not a Cam-like cleanout. And that's 6 months from surgery (so if you need the 2nd one it's restarts the clock). No way around it. Ray Lewis had to have it in 2002 in-season - and poof, season over. But from 2003-2010, other than a different injury, back to form. Again, that's an elite player, maybe one of the ATG's, so it's a reach to point to him alone. But Lawson, Lewis, and many other football guys on the non-throwing positions, and the rugby info (which really simulates thumpers well), it's not hard to see why SF/NO were still on board.

In Atwater's case he actually demonstrates the point that RC surgery works - his shoulder held up the last 2+ years he played after surgery, but his knees really did him in sooner - left knee operated on that same time as shoulder and he reinjured the knee the next year missing 2 games, then missed 4-5 games his final year with a bad hamstring on that leg - a classic cascade injury that follows a bad knee. Then retirement. Now the shoulder very well might have played a role in Atwater's decision to retire but the knee was the final culprit.

Either way though only way we will know is with time, but the RC injury isn't normally the death sentence it is for say a pitcher or tennis player. And again at 8 weeks there isn't much info to go on to say a setback's occurred from an exam - it really seems like educated guess work and risk avoidance than confirmation of re-injury or non-union. You can't tell from an exam. Otherwise every team should have stayed away Rd 1 if there was hard info available from the Combine re-check.

Now, let's say Foster is still elite by Year 2, regardless of which way year 1 goes. Philosophy-wise, the concern rasied may have knocked Foster down because of the risk of missing part (or all) of 2017, so it's still fair to give Elway more leeway given the uncertainty. I think it's also fair to show why orgs like SF & NO didn't knock Foster down any further, and fought to get him at 31, because the record of success with RC surgery is actually excellent (and 2017 is usually only in doubt if a 2nd stabilizing procedure is needed - and again, impossible to determine that with a bedside exam at the 8-week mark). Plus, philosophy-wise, it's still hard to reconcile that Elway locked into LT as an absolute need over anything else, no matter how the board fell, given he tried to trade up (but failed) in Rd 1 for Bolles alone, and yet OJ Howard was there at 19, and Elway clearly said himself he'd have passed on Howard even if he fell to 20, nor considered getting extra value by trading back to get more day 2 picks and getting a different T (both confirmed by Renck). When you combine it with his admission he tried to trade up for Walker when it wasn't needed, hard to say he doesn't lock in, no matter how the board falls. Either way, though, results-wise, we can't tell right now how it will shake out, but the philosophy is worth discussing. All good.
_________________
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
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul-mac wrote:
Re: day 2 draft strategy,


It's worth pointing out that I think late round 2 is a bit of a rough spot


I always feel like the structure of most drafts is

- About 20 guys that are slam dunk first round picks
- The next 25-30 guys are fringe first rounders or slam dunk early second rounders
- Then it becomes a bit of a crapshoot with late second rounders not being much different to like 4th/5th round picks


This leads to a lot of teams reaching in the late second


That's a very fair observation. There's a lot more uncertainty the further down the board we go. Having said that, Elway's success rate is still way below the expectation, especially when you factor some positions.

I really hated to cite this, but it's the best source - that guy did great work, he just cheers for the wrong team (LOL). It looked up the 2005-14 drafts round by round, and by position, and looked at who became regular starters (not stars, just regular starters) -
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Some of the Rd 2/3 #'s are staggering when you compare it to us - OL 2nd rd success rate 70 percent, 3rd round 40% - split the diff, even a late 2nd hits around 50+ percent of the time.. Our late 2nd hit rate seems like a 50/50 prop - as Schofield started 1 year, on our worst OL ever, I don't think we can count him. Sambrailo we've covered.

TE's 40-50 percent Rd 2-3. WR 50 percent Rd 2 (and given how deep 2013 was, and Landry/A-Robinson were behind Latimer, sorry, we can't say it wasn't deep there). The hit rates for Rd 2-3 are bad for DL and RB, but we can safely say they're better than Elway's since 2011. Now, hopefully Simmons and the 2017 class can turn this around, but it just doesn't seem low, the comparison to 2005-2014 results shows Elway is really low apart from the 2011 draft compared to his peers on Day 2. Again, if he was just at the league average, we'd have likely 2-3 starters from the 2013-2015 draft class.

One by one, we can excuse Elway somewhat, but when you add it up, Elway's 2012-15 Rd 2-3 record is just not defendable. And yet, his Rd 1 & Day 3 records are really good to outstanding? Why? Well, I think Elway locking in, NOT going positional need vs. BPA Rd1 (until last 2 years, but QB is so important, ppl understand that - if anything, though, Elway's Rd 1 BPA picks have been his best), and his home-run with high bust potential approach partly explain why he hits on Rd 1 / Day 3, but also why he's missed Day 2 more than you'd expect, ever since that amazing 2011 draft. Rd 1 has a pool of talent with higher floors (so lower bust potential), while again, Rd 3, it's OK to whiff - the rates are so high anyways for everyone. So hitting big Day 3 really is the way to go, and Rd 1 it's easier to find high-floor guys who are also high-ceiling guys. Rd 2 is where the player pool risk/reward profile doesn't seem to fit with Elway's philosophy...at least in the past. Teams like SEA, NE, PIT have drafted late and found Day 2 value pretty consistently (remember, even if you are at 35-50 percent, from 2013-15 that's 2-3 guys out of 6), so it's not like we're expecting Elway to do something others can't on Day 2.

Like your point on strength of draft classes in different years, I think there are other reasons that are out of his control (when the draft class is bad overall, bad luck, etc.), but the 3 points that Elway can control, those are it. Elway's confirmed 2 of them, the 3rd point (goes for home run most every time, no matter the risk), that's just my observation.
_________________
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
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3146
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alabama guys scare me in general. I don't think it's a coincidence Howard, Foster, Allen all fell.

That defense had like 9 defensive players drafted the first three rounds that's scary. All that talent with one on one matchups against weaker competition half the time.

It scares me translating to the NFL It's a totally different game. Guys will triple team you on this level of you're truly great.
_________________
Props to Deadpulse for the Sig:

Big Palooka wrote:
"They don't have to worry about him making consistent passes. They will win another 2-3 max with him at QB."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncoinGermany


Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 3406
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice read regardless, but within the context of this thread even more so. The similarities between John Schneider and Elway in how they approach the draft are evident. And Schneider usually is considered to be among the best drafting GMs in the league.

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2017/05/schneider-house-draft-rules.html
_________________
The situation is hopeless, but not serious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BroncoinGermany wrote:
Nice read regardless, but within the context of this thread even more so. The similarities between John Schneider and Elway in how they approach the draft are evident. And Schneider usually is considered to be among the best drafting GMs in the league.

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2017/05/schneider-house-draft-rules.html


That's a fantastic read, great find. And I see a LOT of similarities with Elway. But, there's one key difference that we see from Elway's targeting a specific player, that I'd like to highlight:

Quote:
Schneider looks at a deep position and sees it as a reason to trade back and wait to pick a player from the pool. That approach increases the odds that the team misses out on getting good talent from a deep position. He sees the depth at the position as a chance to get a good player later instead of seeing it as a chance to get a great player early. Five corners were taken before the 31st selection. In a normal year for cornerback depth, King might have been a top 20 pick. The depth created opportunity to get a player who normally would be much farther up the board. The same thing happened with the Seahawks second pick where nine corners were taken before the 58th selection. Some of the corners there would likely have been picked in the early second round in normal years.

Seattle wound up with a corner 32 picks later, who still represents a bargain.


In all other respects, Schneider and Elway sound very similar - that article gave a really nice description of the need/overall BPA, when it's not all one or another. But look at the above, and how Elway locked on to both Bolles and Walker, so much that he tried to trade up for both, yet it wasn't needed. Rightly or wrongly, Elway targets a specific guy, and takes him no matter how the board falls. He did with Bolles 1.20, Walker 2.51, and to a lesser extent, McKenzie (since he moved up to get him). That's the complete opposite of the SEA approach above. Now, I get people will argue that the LT class wasn't deep - but at 1.20, there were 3 guys in the top tier still there. So the option to do what SEA did was there. Same with Demarcus Walker at 2.51.

Again, it's not necessarily bad - if the guy is clearly head and shoulders above the rest of his available peers, then it makes total sense. BUT, if the guy isn't, and I'd argue that Bolles is viewed that way, and certainly, few would argue Walker was in a tier by himself at 2.51, then it's removing that opportunity for value that teams like SEA (or NE, GB, teams with the best drafting records) find in Day 2. We won't know for a couple of years, but that's the argument when there seems to be several players Elway could choose from - locking in no matter how the board falls to get "his guy" just misses value the top drafting orgs don't miss out on. And I think the talent pool, like paul-mac referred to, in Rd 2-3, especially late Rd2, there's a lot more miss-potential, but also not a lot of separation, so the SEA approach above could very well be more successful than Elway's approach.

To repeat - this isn't to suggest it's all bad here. Elway is a master of Day 3 - but I think that's because the pool of talent has the same hit/miss rate overall, so looking home-run hitters makes total sense, given anyone is a high risk for bust. His Day 1 picks have pretty much been mostly all hits - ironically, the only misses (Sly and if he doesn't work out, Lynch, are the only 2), are probably clear instances where the need totally overruled overall BPA. For QB, though, that's understandable (still interesting to note that need picks fared worse than just taking overall BPA in Rd1 regardless). But Elway locking on to 1 guy no matter how the board falls (and again, Elway confirmed this himself), I think it goes a long way to explain his past Day 2 struggles. Note how Elway locked in this time with Walker, trying to trade up when it wasn't needed, and presumably, probably locked on to Gostis and Sambrailo Rd 2 the last 2 years, versus the approach SEA (and looking at GB trade back, and NE trade back, those 2 teams - look at their mid-round success rate - it's much higher than ours).

Now, don't mistake this as saying Elway's entire approach needs a change. But I think the locking-on no matter how the board falls, is very susceptible to the above missed opportunies that other smart teams take advantage of for Day 2. Imagine if we had those teams' Day 2 record, combined with Elway's Day 3 magic. Anyways, at the very least, it's worth discussing. Great find Germany.
_________________
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, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
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