You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 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
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
germ-x


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 9240
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elway has literally always selected players at positions of need, most teams in the league do this. It's literally the only way to fill an NFL roster. Now there might be an occasion here or there where a team takes a player at a position of strength, but it isn't as often as many seem to think.

The difference with Elway in 2016 and 2017 is that Denver has had major holes that everyone can see. In previous years Denver has had a good starter at every single position after free agency, there wasn't a glaring day 1 starter type of need. This allowed Elway to legitimately target the BPA at a position of need and that need was usually depth/building behind aging players. Elway still targeted a need, but it wasn't pressing. It was taking Bradley Roby to compete for #3 duties or Shane Ray to spell Demarcus Ware on occasion and eventually take over as the starter.

The past 2 years Denver has had massive holes at QB and LT forcing Elway to take the best player on their board at those positions in order to fill it even if that player may not have been the highest on their board.

Elway made a mistake not getting Whitworth in Denver. For goodness sakes last year before the draft Denvers QB competition was Mark Sanchez and a 7th round pick. This year they were talking about Donald Stephenson/Ty Sambrailo competing for the LT job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

germ-x wrote:
Elway has literally always selected players at positions of need, most teams in the league do this. It's literally the only way to fill an NFL roster. Now there might be an occasion here or there where a team takes a player at a position of strength, but it isn't as often as many seem to think.

The difference with Elway in 2016 and 2017 is that Denver has had major holes that everyone can see. In previous years Denver has had a good starter at every single position after free agency, there wasn't a glaring day 1 starter type of need. This allowed Elway to legitimately target the BPA at a position of need and that need was usually depth/building behind aging players. Elway still targeted a need, but it wasn't pressing. It was taking Bradley Roby to compete for #3 duties or Shane Ray to spell Demarcus Ware on occasion and eventually take over as the starter.

The past 2 years Denver has had massive holes at QB and LT forcing Elway to take the best player on their board at those positions in order to fill it even if that player may not have been the highest on their board.

Elway made a mistake not getting Whitworth in Denver. For goodness sakes last year before the draft Denvers QB competition was Mark Sanchez and a 7th round pick. This year they were talking about Donald Stephenson/Ty Sambrailo competing for the LT job.


You've staked yourself to the Need/overall BPA flag and I salute that. We disagreed last year as I recalled earlier, and it would be crazy to argue that Elway doesn't take need rather than overall BPA anymore Rd 1 after 2016-17 go down. My only qualification to the above is that with today's NFL, every position except QB becomes a position of need eventually. That's why Elway's gone overall BPA until the last 2 years if you look far enough each spot except QB can be ID'd & justified as a future need. The last 2 years though, as you said, 1 need was glaringly above all else, as opposed to prior years.

Having said that, there's no doubt in the last 2 years that Elway's targeted #1 need over overall BPA. Can't dispute that at all.

And yeah while there was nothing wrong with going Leary at G in a vacuum, FA is where you address your biggest glaring need so you aren't tempted to force biggest need into the Rd1 equation. No guarantees that Whitworth would have come to us, but the fact Elway didn't pursue Whitworth (Elway again confirmed this), especially as the contract details show Whitworth got signed to a 1-year deal guaranteed $ (3 years, but the last 2 have no guaranteed $ except the bonus), tactical and philosophical error IMO. Oh well, what's done is done.

Still, his Day 2 misses are more than just need/BPA, I do think the locking-in that Elway revealed this year isn't a new thing, and explains those misses more - it's just out as public knowledge now.
_________________
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: 6952
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:

Having said that, there's no doubt in the last 2 years that Elway's targeted #1 need over overall BPA. Can't dispute that at all.



That's where I think the disconnect comes. There's definitely dispute on a players value, even among NFL Teams.

The player information we, as fans, get is strictly commercial and free. A good example is CBS Sports. They hire no scouts but rely on a guy named Frank Cooney, ex Raider beat writer and owner of Sports Xchange, for all their player profiles. He doesn't hire scouts either but relies on journalists and sportswriters for his info.

The same pretty much applies to all commercial sites, if not Frank, then it's someone similar.

It's not all bad, I'm not saying that. It's just nowhere near the level of scouting an NFL team engages in. Most NFL teams are spending millions each year scouting college kids and know far more about them than we ever will.

That's one reason why every year we see major freefalls from some players and others drafted in our opinions (Franks?) a round too soon.

Just my 2 cents. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AKRNA wrote:
Broncofan wrote:

Having said that, there's no doubt in the last 2 years that Elway's targeted #1 need over overall BPA. Can't dispute that at all.



That's where I think the disconnect comes. There's definitely dispute on a players value, even among NFL Teams.

The player information we, as fans, get is strictly commercial and free. A good example is CBS Sports. They hire no scouts but rely on a guy named Frank Cooney, ex Raider beat writer and owner of Sports Xchange, for all their player profiles. He doesn't hire scouts either but relies on journalists and sportswriters for his info.

The same pretty much applies to all commercial sites, if not Frank, then it's someone similar.

It's not all bad, I'm not saying that. It's just nowhere near the level of scouting an NFL team engages in. Most NFL teams are spending millions each year scouting college kids and know far more about them than we ever will.

That's one reason why every year we see major freefalls from some players and others drafted in our opinions (Franks?) a round too soon.

Just my 2 cents. Wink


This is my opinion in a nutshell for instance last year Wentz was on no one's radar for a D 2 college. I feel like that was all done on espns radar.


If every team follows the so called " experts draft board" they'd be out of jobs.

And I feel like Left Tackles are graded on a different scale. All I keep reading is Trubisky, Mahomes, and Watson had second or third round grades and they went top 12. So with those positions there's a lot of projecting of potential upside. Same with left tackles outside the top 10.

So in theory they could of been the best players available.
_________________
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
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Keeping quote tree down for mobile browsing)

^^^^Either way though there's a major problem with Elway's current valuation system. It's always possible that Elway might have had the players he took in Lynch and Bolles as overall BPA, without factoring in positional need. It's really unlikely, though, for reasons AKRNA & elliott referred to separately.

As AKRNA has pointed out, not only is the LT position is one we've had a crying need for (everyone agrees), it's one that GM's have traditionally valued at a premium. The value is affecting the judgment, it's not a comp on overall talent. The LT position traditionally is the most valued - so a medium talent at a premium position gets an upgrade. And as we covered earlier this thread, if you are a top 6-10 (actually top 6-12 LT), you are more valuable $ wise than if you are a top 6-12 player anywhere else but QB/CB/EDGE (but not if you are a top 3 player at most other positions, except TE - but no top 3 TE's were in the salary bump offseason this year). As Elway said himself before the draft in interviews - "we will get LT sorted out". That's not we will take BPA. Top LT. Again, the above points aren't conjecture - Elway's words & the salaries speak for themselves (although they point out if you are a top 3 player at your other position, it's well worth it $$-wise as well, before you get to the player advantage). It's hard to use those arguments to argue for LT, and then not say that positional need isn't being factored in for Elway. Frankly, it's the only argument that I think can be justified - especially when the difference in talent for all the available players is small, it's actually the right call. I don't think that applies to Foster/Howard & Bolles, and that's widespread - it's only when you factor LT that ppl starting to argue for Bolles. If Forrest Lamp was a surefire LT, I'm sure you'd have had a huge argument for him as overall OL - I think he was best OL regardless. But the LT argument is the only way the pick was justified, even amongst Renck/Klis. That's no coincidence. If Elway had gone McCaffrey/Howard/Foster, I think no one would argue the overall BPA talent argument.

Secondly, elliott pointed out to the high whiff rates LT's have had of late. I actually think that's a reason to not overreach for a LT (like not overreaching for a QB Rd1 if he's not seen as a franchise QB), but the fear factor with not going later on LT likely played in - more T's are being taken Rd1 because of the need, with a higher bust rate as the talent hasn't matched. Now, that's just my view, not as hard as the above. It's also no guaranteed that Bolles/Ramczyk will fail as T's, just an observation that need is clearly still driving T Rd 1 picks.

Most importantly, though, even if we accept the low probability that Elway's put these guys at the top of their list without factoring in positional need (and I'd say that's debatable) - there's still a major issue with how Elway currently locks on to these guys. Let's set aside the notion that Elway could have Bolles that high, and that he put them ahead of elite talents like Foster/Howard (which no one can argue with certainty at this stage what Elway was thinking, so let's set that aside), but that he felt the need to trade up for "his guys" when it wasn't needed. No matter how you feel about Bolles/Walker going 1.20/2.51 overall, Bolles ahead of Foster (and Elway confirmed he would have passed on Howard), clearly there is no debate that Elway didn't need to trade up for both. Yet he tried for both. And at that stage of the draft, it would have cost him a Day 2 pick for Rd 1 move up, and no less than a 4th/5th for a 2.51 move up, and more likely the 3.101 if it was a big move up. Imagine our draft without those assets. THAT is what Elway was trying to do for guys that didn't need it. His own words...he just got lucky. If the argument wants to be made that Elway valued guys that highly, OK - but great drafting orgs have to be aware of the player's value on the overall board, and how others see them, so teams don't get pulled into a scenario where they overpay unnecessarily to get those guys. I'd argue that's exactly what happened with Elway and "his guys" in the past Rd2 reaches - Sambrailo & Gostsis may succeed or fail, but they were classic "who is he" picks at Rd2 - because I'd submit Elway had to have them at all costs. When it's pretty clear they weren't special enough to merit that consideration above others. That's the locking on problem I'm referring to. It's not a problem if you are locking on to special players. It's a huge problem if you do that for guys who aren't head and shoulders above the rest.

And TBE6 - remember you're now arguing that Elway doesn't go positional need over BPA talent Rd1 - so you're arguing against yourself again, for an argument you've said you've made for years with champ about positional need overrules overall BPA talent in Rd1 (AKRNA is being consistent in his point that positional value factors in). Even then, if you are changing your mind, then there's still a major problem with Elway's valuation - even if it's in the minority and proven to be right as the overall BPA (which, given the positional value argument, is debatable), Elway's valuation is so extreme for "his guys" he's tried to trade up value picks to get them when they aren't needed. And if he did that this year and we know about it, it's not hard to look at the reach picks in Day 2 from the past, and wonder if the same philosophical approaches were in play. Germany's article on SEA shows how they approach a tier of similar talent very differently than we saw this year with Elway's locking-on approach.

Again, if it's a player who is actually head and shoulders above his available peers, locking on no matter how the board falls is a great approach (Shane Ray trade-up is a good example of this done well). Or if there's no real difference in risk, and there's no real cost difference (Day 3 successes). But this year's attempts to trade up when it wasn't needed Rd 1-2, and his past Day 2 failures, it's also potentially explained as the downside to this locking-on-no-matter-how-board-falls approach, as well as the missed opportunities for gaining value that orgs like SEA/NE/GB get in Day 2. And make no mistake - Elway's still a great GM. But the margin between good and great teams is often just 2-3 players on the roster. That's why Day 2 misses on his scale matters. Hopefully he's already turning it around with Simmons last year, and we all hope this year. But the approach with locking on no matter how the board falls, (and if Elway really seems Lynch/Bolles as BPA, I'd argue he's factoring in their position, but no one knows, sure seems that way, but then locking on to the extreme of trying to trade up when it's not needed, again, this is confirmed by Elway) certainly points to the risks involved.
_________________
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: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
(Keeping quote tree down for mobile browsing)

^^^^Either way though there's a major problem with Elway's current valuation system. It's always possible that Elway might have had the players he took in Lynch and Bolles as overall BPA, without factoring in positional need. It's really unlikely, though, for reasons AKRNA & elliott referred to separately.

As AKRNA has pointed out, not only is the LT position is one we've had a crying need for (everyone agrees), it's one that GM's have traditionally valued at a premium. The value is affecting the judgment, it's not a comp on overall talent. The LT position traditionally is the most valued - so a medium talent at a premium position gets an upgrade. And as we covered earlier this thread, if you are a top 6-10 (actually top 6-12 LT), you are more valuable $ wise than if you are a top 6-12 player anywhere else but QB/CB/EDGE (but not if you are a top 3 player at most other positions, except TE - but no top 3 TE's were in the salary bump offseason this year). As Elway said himself before the draft in interviews - "we will get LT sorted out". That's not we will take BPA. Top LT. Again, the above points aren't conjecture - Elway's words & the salaries speak for themselves (although they point out if you are a top 3 player at your other position, it's well worth it $$-wise as well, before you get to the player advantage). It's hard to use those arguments to argue for LT, and then not say that positional need isn't being factored in for Elway. Frankly, it's the only argument that I think can be justified - especially when the difference in talent for all the available players is small, it's actually the right call. I don't think that applies to Foster/Howard & Bolles, and that's widespread - it's only when you factor LT that ppl starting to argue for Bolles. If Forrest Lamp was a surefire LT, I'm sure you'd have had a huge argument for him as overall OL - I think he was best OL regardless. But the LT argument is the only way the pick was justified, even amongst Renck/Klis. That's no coincidence. If Elway had gone McCaffrey/Howard/Foster, I think no one would argue the overall BPA talent argument.

Secondly, elliott pointed out to the high whiff rates LT's have had of late. I actually think that's a reason to not overreach for a LT (like not overreaching for a QB Rd1 if he's not seen as a franchise QB), but the fear factor with not going later on LT likely played in - more T's are being taken Rd1 because of the need, with a higher bust rate as the talent hasn't matched. Now, that's just my view, not as hard as the above. It's also no guaranteed that Bolles/Ramczyk will fail as T's, just an observation that need is clearly still driving T Rd 1 picks.

Most importantly, though, even if we accept the low probability that Elway's put these guys at the top of their list without factoring in positional need (and I'd say that's debatable) - there's still a major issue with how Elway currently locks on to these guys. Let's set aside the notion that Elway could have Bolles that high, and that he put them ahead of elite talents like Foster/Howard (which no one can argue with certainty at this stage what Elway was thinking, so let's set that aside), but that he felt the need to trade up for "his guys" when it wasn't needed. No matter how you feel about Bolles/Walker going 1.20/2.51 overall, Bolles ahead of Foster (and Elway confirmed he would have passed on Howard), clearly there is no debate that Elway didn't need to trade up for both. Yet he tried for both. And at that stage of the draft, it would have cost him a Day 2 pick for Rd 1 move up, and no less than a 4th/5th for a 2.51 move up, and more likely the 3.101 if it was a big move up. Imagine our draft without those assets. THAT is what Elway was trying to do for guys that didn't need it. His own words...he just got lucky. If the argument wants to be made that Elway valued guys that highly, OK - but great drafting orgs have to be aware of the player's value on the overall board, and how others see them, so teams don't get pulled into a scenario where they overpay unnecessarily to get those guys. I'd argue that's exactly what happened with Elway and "his guys" in the past Rd2 reaches - Sambrailo & Gostsis may succeed or fail, but they were classic "who is he" picks at Rd2 - because I'd submit Elway had to have them at all costs. When it's pretty clear they weren't special enough to merit that consideration above others. That's the locking on problem I'm referring to. It's not a problem if you are locking on to special players. It's a huge problem if you do that for guys who aren't head and shoulders above the rest.

And TBE6 - remember you're now arguing that Elway doesn't go positional need over BPA talent Rd1 - so you're arguing against yourself again, for an argument you've said you've made for years with champ about positional need overrules overall BPA talent in Rd1 (AKRNA is being consistent in his point that positional value factors in). Even then, if you are changing your mind, then there's still a major problem with Elway's valuation - even if it's in the minority and proven to be right as the overall BPA (which, given the positional value argument, is debatable), Elway's valuation is so extreme for "his guys" he's tried to trade up value picks to get them when they aren't needed. And if he did that this year and we know about it, it's not hard to look at the reach picks in Day 2 from the past, and wonder if the same philosophical approaches were in play. Germany's article on SEA shows how they approach a tier of similar talent very differently than we saw this year with Elway's locking-on approach.

Again, if it's a player who is actually head and shoulders above his available peers, locking on no matter how the board falls is a great approach (Shane Ray trade-up is a good example of this done well). Or if there's no real difference in risk, and there's no real cost difference (Day 3 successes). But this year's attempts to trade up when it wasn't needed Rd 1-2, and his past Day 2 failures, it's also potentially explained as the downside to this locking-on-no-matter-how-board-falls approach, as well as the missed opportunities for gaining value that orgs like SEA/NE/GB get in Day 2. And make no mistake - Elway's still a great GM. But the margin between good and great teams is often just 2-3 players on the roster. That's why Day 2 misses on his scale matters. Hopefully he's already turning it around with Simmons last year, and we all hope this year. But the approach with locking on no matter how the board falls, (and if Elway really seems Lynch/Bolles as BPA, I'd argue he's factoring in their position, but no one knows, sure seems that way, but then locking on to the extreme of trying to trade up when it's not needed, again, this is confirmed by Elway) certainly points to the risks involved.



I'm not changing my my argument has always been best player available at a position of need. A lot can go into that Elway clearly gad a head and shoulders grade on Bolles to trade up. So again just because some people's evaluations don't match that doesn't mean that that's not partially bpa in Elways mind. That's the only wat your willing to trade up for Bolles, but not down for Robinson, Or Ramsyk
_________________
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
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh shoot...I missed something watching the draft. I can't believe the Broncos traded up for Bolles...for that reason, I get AAA's angst. I think he probably would have landed at 20 without having to trade anything. If you are going to trade up, I think it has be a skill position...O.J. Howard would have been a better pick and worthy of trading up for.

What the heck was I watching that I missed that trade? Must have been drinking or something.
_________________
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: 3609
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thebestever6 wrote:



I'm not changing my my argument has always been best player available at a position of need. A lot can go into that Elway clearly gad a head and shoulders grade on Bolles to trade up. So again just because some people's evaluations don't match that doesn't mean that that's not partially bpa in Elways mind. That's the only wat your willing to trade up for Bolles, but not down for Robinson, Or Ramsyk


Either way though there's still a major problem in approach, no matter what Elway decided. Because his value system is making him believe he has to move up for "his guys" when it's not needed (remember this isn't guess work - Elway confirmed this with Bolles Rd 1 & Walker Rd 2 to Renck after Day 2 ended - in Elway's own words, he got lucky. It's not guess work Elway confirmed all the above points (plus chance to trade back from 1.20).

Bolles - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857798985330905088;
Trade back - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857804306925461508
Walker - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166613480271872 & https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166875053838337

And we obv. know now there was no need to trade up for Bolles and Walker, yet Elway thought he did.

And again - as you said with BPA at position of need - Elway's factoring in positional need. Elway's own words before the draft - we will address LT. Once need is factored in then he's not taking overall BPA talent-wise. Again, that isn't a problem if the talent ceiling gap is small.

Regardless of where Elway ranks guys due to positional need (and it clearly factors in), Elway's locking in to guys where he thinks he has to pay a price that isn't required. That's the danger of locking in to a guy if they aren't head and shoulders above the others available. As covered before by champ & germ ideally we don't enter the draft with such a glaring need and have to be put in that position of deciding Rd1 between need and best overall talent. In a perfect world they are the same guy (or at least close enough the gap isn't worth enough to worry about).
_________________
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 Sun May 07, 2017 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ The same thing could be said when taking Wolfe. Most believed he was taken 2 rounds too early and were opposed to the pick. Ge was clearly targeted in the second round that year.

Listen, Elway has his flaws no gm is perfect but he's being undersold given tge additions he has added through the draft while picking late every year besides 2011.

Looking at the superbowl year this team looks to be improved at every position across the board on offense. Now manning has a mental accuity and leadership that can't be under sold. But overall the offense looks much better.

The D also looks to not have lost too much with replacing ware with Ray. And if the additions of Walker and Gotsis if he can improve could make up the difference. The only loss from the Superbowl team that we haven't looked to replace is trev. I think Elway needs a little due to what he's done in this area.


Elway in any other division would be applauded and respected for what he's done but he's in the best divison, and drafting divison in football.
_________________
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
germ-x


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 9240
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
thebestever6 wrote:



I'm not changing my my argument has always been best player available at a position of need. A lot can go into that Elway clearly gad a head and shoulders grade on Bolles to trade up. So again just because some people's evaluations don't match that doesn't mean that that's not partially bpa in Elways mind. That's the only wat your willing to trade up for Bolles, but not down for Robinson, Or Ramsyk


Either way though there's still a major problem in approach, no matter what Elway decided. Because his value system is making him believe he has to move up for "his guys" when it's not needed (remember this isn't guess work - Elway confirmed this with Bolles Rd 1 & Walker Rd 2 to Renck after Day 2 ended - in Elway's own words, he got lucky. It's not guess work Wlwau confirmed all points (plus chance to trade back).

Bolles - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857798985330905088;
Trade back - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857804306925461508
Walker - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166613480271872 & https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166875053838337

And we obv. know now there was no need to trade up for Bolles and Walker, yet Elway thought he did.

And again - as you said with BPA at position of need - Elway's factoring in positional need. Elway's own words before the draft - we will address LT. Once need is factored in then he's not taking overall BPA talent-wise. Again, that isn't a problem if the talent ceiling gap is small.

Regardless of where Elway ranks guys due to positional need (and it clearly factors in), Elway's locking in to guys where he thinks he has to pay a price that isn't required. That's the danger of locking in to a guy if they aren't head and shoulders above the others available. As covered before by champ & germ ideally we don't enter the draft with such a glaring need and have to be put in that position of deciding Rd1 between need and best overall talent. In a perfect world they are the same guy (or at least close enough the gap isn't worth enough to worry about).


Not signing Whitworth was a major mistake, as I've mentioned many times. Elway had to get a LT, just no way around that. Physically Bolles fits that profile (his athleticism and feet are elite for the position), but Elway had to make sure he could get the best LT on their board, which is why he wanted to trade up. Luckily he didn't get a taker.

As far as Walker, though, I think that was just a complete mismanagement of the draft. Denver drafted Walker for his interior pass rush ability (also a major need), but clearly Elway and company had little understanding of how the draft would fall. I like Walker, but he's a blah type of guy to me, especially in the 3/4. No reason to trade up for that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thebestever6 wrote:
^ The same thing could be said when taking Wolfe. Most believed he was taken 2 rounds too early and were opposed to the pick. Ge was clearly targeted in the second round that year.

Listen, Elway has his flaws no gm is perfect but he's being undersold given tge additions he has added through the draft while picking late every year besides 2011.

Looking at the superbowl year this team looks to be improved at every position across the board on offense. Now manning has a mental accuity and leadership that can't be under sold. But overall the offense looks much better.

The D also looks to not have lost too much with replacing ware with Ray. And if the additions of Walker and Gotsis if he can improve could make up the difference. The only loss from the Superbowl team that we haven't looked to replace is trev. I think Elway needs a little due to what he's done in this area.


Elway in any other division would be applauded and respected for what he's done but he's in the best divison, and drafting divison in football.


Wolfe is a great example - but of the opposite point you're making. Elway took the exact opposite approach with Wolfe versus what he's doing now. Again, you don't have to believe me - let other hard, national sources be the confirmation.

Mel Kiper reported that DEN was falling in love with Wolfe with the 25 pick. But mocks had Wolfe going mid-late 2nd.

http://nflmocks.com/2012/04/18/mel-kiper-jr-says-cincinnatis-derek-wolfe-is-a-first-round-pick/ (Kiper reports Elway's targeting Wolfe for 1.25).

CBS last mock 2012 - http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2012-nfl-draft-mock-drafts-round-2-and-round-3/ - Wolfe goes 59

NFLN last mock predraft April 24, 2012 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d8288dc3b/article/sevenround-mock-projecting-every-pick-in-2012-nfl-draft - Wolfe goes 45.

At the 2012 draft Wolfe was projected to go mid-late 2nd round both predraft and heading into Day 2. NOT 2+ rounds later. Kiper was right that Elway wanted Wolfe. But Elway didn't reach early at 1.25 for Wolfe but instead traded back 2x and still got Wolfe at 1.36 and got extra value along with Wolfe later - rather than forcing a 1.25 pick with Wolfe. That's the value based approach Germany referenced that SEA does by NOT reaching above where other teams have a targeted player. Elway did it then by not forcing a reach at 1.25 and get extra value along the way. But again, he did exact opposite to this year (trying to trade up to get "his guy" when it's not needed). Exact opposite (confirmed by Elway himself). And perhaps what he did then was also opposite to 2015-16, in reaching way ahead of guys like Sambrailo / Gostsis Rd 2 (who while we can never be sure never were on the radar at Rd2 like Wolfe clearly was heading into the 2012 draft). To be clear - I agree with Bruin's point that we can never know if Elway could have traded back & still got Bolles this year. So I'm not saying that here. We only know he could have traded back and still got Ramczyk/Bolles and more Day 2 help. We have no idea which is the better option (or if taking Foster 1.20 or trading up for Howard at 1.18 was better). Only time will tell there. But look at how Elway didn't force the board but took what the board gave him in 2012 - and contrast that to his attempts to move up this year when the board didn't need him to for both Bolles & Walker.

Listen, no one is saying Elway is a terrible GM. You keep putting those kind of statements when no one has said that. Not even AAA in his most pessimistic posts says that. Elway's Day 2 struggles are a matter of record. His statements on wanting to trade up when it wasn't needed are on record. Again, identifying a potential weakness is Elway's approach isn't calling him a bad GM. Let's stop with that - its disingenuous to infer anyone is saying that. No one is. We all recognize his Day 3 greatness his cap management skills and value FA finds. But as you said he's not perfect. It's just that if it's a problem in his approach and it's changed it's always worth discussing rationally.

I'll say it again - the margin between good and great teams in the NFL nowadays is sometimes only 2-3 players. Missing Day 2 like Elway has from 2012-15 has added up. Hopefully it will reverse - but if there's an approach that Elway is using now that is different than before (his actions in 2015-16 differ than his words on needs vs. overall BPA & his words confirm he's locking in no matter how the board is falling, even to the point where he would given up extra unnecessary value to get that guy - when Wolfe actually shows how he let the board let him get max value), and it is potentially contributing to the struggles then let's recognize them and see how thet changes over time.
_________________
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 Sun May 07, 2017 7:44 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

germ-x wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
thebestever6 wrote:



I'm not changing my my argument has always been best player available at a position of need. A lot can go into that Elway clearly gad a head and shoulders grade on Bolles to trade up. So again just because some people's evaluations don't match that doesn't mean that that's not partially bpa in Elways mind. That's the only wat your willing to trade up for Bolles, but not down for Robinson, Or Ramsyk


Either way though there's still a major problem in approach, no matter what Elway decided. Because his value system is making him believe he has to move up for "his guys" when it's not needed (remember this isn't guess work - Elway confirmed this with Bolles Rd 1 & Walker Rd 2 to Renck after Day 2 ended - in Elway's own words, he got lucky. It's not guess work Elway confirmed all points (plus chance to trade back).

Bolles - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857798985330905088;
Trade back - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/857804306925461508
Walker - https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166613480271872 & https://twitter.com/troyrenck/status/858166875053838337

And we obv. know now there was no need to trade up for Bolles and Walker, yet Elway thought he did.

And again - as you said with BPA at position of need - Elway's factoring in positional need. Elway's own words before the draft - we will address LT. Once need is factored in then he's not taking overall BPA talent-wise. Again, that isn't a problem if the talent ceiling gap is small.

Regardless of where Elway ranks guys due to positional need (and it clearly factors in), Elway's locking in to guys where he thinks he has to pay a price that isn't required. That's the danger of locking in to a guy if they aren't head and shoulders above the others available. As covered before by champ & germ ideally we don't enter the draft with such a glaring need and have to be put in that position of deciding Rd1 between need and best overall talent. In a perfect world they are the same guy (or at least close enough the gap isn't worth enough to worry about).


Not signing Whitworth was a major mistake, as I've mentioned many times. Elway had to get a LT, just no way around that. Physically Bolles fits that profile (his athleticism and feet are elite for the position), but Elway had to make sure he could get the best LT on their board, which is why he wanted to trade up. Luckily he didn't get a taker.

As far as Walker, though, I think that was just a complete mismanagement of the draft. Denver drafted Walker for his interior pass rush ability (also a major need), but clearly Elway and company had little understanding of how the draft would fall. I like Walker, but he's a blah type of guy to me, especially in the 3/4. No reason to trade up for that.


It's hard to argue otherwise on lack of awareness of how the draft would fall. The 2 attempted Rd1 & Rd 2 trades this year that weren't needed, Sambrailo/Gostis as out of nowhere picks Rd 2 2016-17.

To be completely fair to Elway that isn't his job. Someone in scouting should be on top of that. Elway can't be projecting the board by himself. That's why I wanted to know what the new promotions to our FO bring in AAA's FO Shuffle Thread - someone there is likely doing that job.

In 2012 someone figured out looking at the board that Wolfe could be had later in early Rd 2 instead of reaching @ 1.25, and we took advantage. We aren't seeing any moves now but moving up Day 1-2 to get 1 guy, willing to give up value where it's not needed, and not being influenced by how the board is falling. All of the above statements aren't guess work - Elway confirmed them himself. Again, that approach of locking in on 1 guy no matter how the board falls is not only justified if the guy is special and clearly head & shoulders above the others available, it's the right call. But if the targeted guys are not head and shoulders above their peers, and there are similar choices available, then it's a big problem. And on that it's not Elway's fault directly. Just that he needs better help in that department from his scouts/directors.

Either way, excellent discussion guys.
_________________
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 Sun May 07, 2017 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Yes Elway traded back and still got his man in Wolfe but if you remember that draft elway gpt horrible value by trading down compared to the other trams.

He still targeted wolfe whether he got him at pick 25 or pick 36 I believe is irrelevant he still proved to be a great pick for us value is some made up word from all the pundits to compare what a team does to their draft board.
Who knows whether all this has caused elway to go after targeted players more. Assuming guys will fall to you is a huge risk.Maybe they lost out on guys they were targeting since wolfe and they went on to become probowlers we just don't know.

- The Bolles trade while proved not needed if oj howard doesn't fall it would've been totally needed that much is certain. Tampa was on record they would of traded down had it not been for an elite talent on their board.
- If Bolles is a tom Nalen type player for us and stabilizes the trenches for a decade is anyone gonna still knock the elway wanting to trade up for him I doubt it. With Walker it's the same thing I'm just so sick of this value word thrown around.

- Mike Mitchell a over valued second round pick who was projected to be a 6th round - to undrafted player. Who is still playing at a high level today does anyone look at him and say he was over valued?

- And I think Elway has gotten subliminal bashing sure no one has out right said it but when you have people slander a draft like some on here do every year. To people saying The Broncos are the least talented team in the division I think it falls on Elway.

- When Elway was compared to John Schneider, and Bill B as best gms I thought he was over sold I was on record saying that.

Because Bill B has put together championship teams 17 years running now. Year after year will low picks, and salary cap changes. He's one and there's no argument there.
John Schneider- Has fielded championship team comtenders for 5 years now. Drafted a franchise qb which elway has yet to do if Elway does that we can debate it, Traded a 4th for beast mode and got elite production from him for 4 years, Drafted Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman. Has just done a great job.

Elway- Building around Manning is easy he's a legend makes any team better. But the Colts didn't have the success that we did with him 1/3rd of the time. Saints with Brees, Packers with Rodgers, Dolphins with Marino. None have had the success Elway has building around a franchise qb in his short window here.

This is a transition phase for Elway- The Team has to turn a corner this year. Elway has pieces like Wolfe, Harris, Parker, Simmons, Miller, Ray. Paradise etc.

This is The year for the unknowns Lynch or Siemians has to emerge as a franchise qb. That happens the sky is the limit.

Deangello Henderson or Booker have to step up- If Charels is on the roster and Cj anderson isnt traded that's nota good sign for Booker or Henderson.

We need 1 or 2 of Garcia, Sambrillo, Mcgovern. and Schoffield to step up and solidify the oline.

We need rookiesto step up- Bolles, Walker, Henderson.

Okung was terrible after game one last year and showed no desire. If Bolles is average with some want too that would be a big upgrade.
_________________
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
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TBE6 I get you want to see the positive here. I do too. But if you and others are going to point to people who criticize the draft and how they say DEN could have traded back and still gotten Bolles later as having no way of being sure (Bruin's point), then you can't then now turn around and then say trading up for Bolles would have been necessary if so-and-so happened. Saying it would have been necessary if OJ Howard didn't fall - OJ Howard did fall to Tampa. The trade wasn't necessary. If people are going to concede you can't do what-ifs with Bolles trading back, then trading-up follows the same principle.

Either way, though, all good. We don't have to agree on everything. That's not the point. You already agree that Elway is factoring in positional need into his Rd1 choices, and Elway's own words confirm his locking in to guys, no matter how the board fell. I think it's hard to argue that he and his staff didn't have a good handle on the draft board falling as germ noted, as their attempts to trade up for BOTH Bolles & Walker clearly show this. But it's not like it's all bad, either. We won't know if going Bolles 1.20 over trading back & getting Ramczyk/Robinson & more Day 2 value, or taking Foster 1.20 (and likely a G I'd imagine Rd2), or moving up for OJ Howard @ 1.18 (Germany & grizmo's scenario, among others), would have been the right move. Time will tell.

No matter how the above all shakes out, thought, it's still notable that Elway's draft approach has changed in 2 confirmed ways than what he's stated/done in the past. There's also a clear inability to project the board to the point where Elway's confirmed trade attempts weren't necessary. Those are worth discussing, given if it's an approach issue, then it's a potential for repeats in future drafts. Worth watching.
_________________
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: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ obviously in an ideal world I'd trade down If I'm guranteed to get my guy. And in the case of Bolles I think Elway had a grade on him higher than any other tackle or position at that point. I'm not sold to the fact that he wasn't the bpa given all of Rueben fosters issue's primarily medically.

There's just too many variables too consider too just say Elways model has changed. It was noted denver couldn't keep all 10 draft picks so if elway wanted to use one to get walker I can't hate him for that If he was a player Denver had too have and you could land a pick at a bargain price that's not terrible.

I'm not sold elways approach changed or simply the team changed. In the fact that it doesn't need to fill as many unknown roster spots as it did 2012.
But I do think Elway always targeted with wolfe we traded down because this team had a lot of needs and targets. See Ronnie Hillman in round 3 we traded up to get him. I think there's just too many variables to think elway thinks a certain way or elway is doing this we have no clue.



Elway Targeted Brock he was raw but young. He factors in upside, and projection he always has. I don't know what formula is used for their grades. He wasn't even the best player at the position when selected so. Elway never strictly followed that model.
_________________
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
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 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