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
 
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
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You look back on that 2012 draft it's been largely speculated that if we had not signed Peyton. Brandon Weeden would of been our first round pick. So the way tge cards fell we didn't have to go that route.

That draft Elway was high on Weeden, Osweiler, and Russell Wilson. I'd like to hope that had we've been dealt that hand Browns trade up for Weeden and we select wilson in round 2 because he was more pro ready than Brock but you never know.

Elway, has always moved to the beat of a different drum.

I do see comparisons to Whitworth and Bolles, And Manning and Weeden. I'd like to think Elway did as well and took that under consideration only time will tell if it pays off.

Weeden was pro ready had the arm and accuracy he was viewed a quick fix solution had we not signed manning.

Whitworth is an all timer and we didn't even get into talks with him. Something tells me Bolles was a significant target even before free agency.
_________________
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 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: targeting, it's not whether Elway has done it in the past that's the issue. Keep in mind locking in and targeting 1 player isn't bad by itself - it's when it's done for players who aren't worth targeting no matter how the board falls, or ignoring how the board is falling, that problems arise. If that guy is special, head and shoulders above the others available at that spot, then if the price is right, locking in is not just reasonable, it's actually justified. That's Ray 2015 Rd 1. It's when the guy isn't head and shoulders above the other choices (?Rd 2 2015-16 with Sambrailo/Gostsis?), or if the price is too high (or in the case this year with Rd 1 Bolles & Rd 2 Walker, completely unnecessary), that it's a bad move. We don't know if Bolles/Walker were the right guys yet for each spot, we do know moving up and paying extra picks wasn't necessary (and for Rd 1, even 2 spots means 3.82-3.101 are the price range, and Rd2, 3.101 - 5.145 are the range, depending on how far you go - no one would argue that was a price worth paying, since it wasn't necessary to get either).

What made Wolfe such a great move by Elway in 2012 wasn't locking in - it was locking in and being aware of Wolfe's position on the draft board, and how the draft board played out - Elway got extra value by trading down because their scouting staff realized he didn't need to go 1.25. Again, that's completely opposite to what just went down in 2017 Rd 1-2, and frankly, one can easily argue Rd 2 2015-16 as well, with picks that were seen immediately and still now as big reaches for the board. That kind of awareness in 2012 seems to be clearly lacking now, as germ noted, and evidenced by the attempts by Elway to trade up for Bolles at 1.20 and Walker at 2.51 when it wasn't needed.

That brings up a good Q - who is in charge of scouting the board in general? It can't be Elway's, wonder who it was before, and who it is now. Maybe the recent departures can explain our 2017 draft inability to predict the board Rd 1-2 this year.
_________________
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: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^I don't know about that. It seems like the picks Elway's player selection has been improving since his first draft. There seems to be more players that make an impact than not. I think last year was stellar draft pick where there are probably more than 2-3 players who stick in the NFL for awhile; not necessarily with the Broncos because players move on.

I can see more than 2-3 players in this draft having quality NFL careers.

-Bolles, if he pans out as the LT of the next 5-6 years is good.
-D. Walker, I think is the best pick of them all; think he become bona fide super start.
-C. Henderson - don't think he is a slot guys, but I think between him and McKenzie you certainly get a returners, which the Broncos desperately needed. And, if you want to notice any trends in Elway is that he will copycat. He copied the Seahawks' defensive model. The Broncos got torched by T. Hill last year, so he is trying to find that kind of weapon now...I can almost guarantee that that is what he is going.
-Langley is the replacement for Webster, with probably more upside.
-D. Henderson is probably third down back of the future. I think he is PS his first year.
-Chad Kelly - look if he isn't a goof ball off the field he could be good to great...don't know what you get with him. I am still a Siemien fan and hope he is the long-term solution at QB for the Broncos. But, if he isn't, Chad Kelly has like zero excuses not to be good...he is a coache's son and nephew to a HOFer...if I had that...f***ck...I certainly wouldn't be chatting with you all on this forum.
_________________
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
champ11


Joined: 14 Apr 2014
Posts: 5868
Location: CO -> ATX
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like I missed some fun stuff over the weekend.

I really really did love the approach to the second half of the draft. Added 3 playmakers, a developmental QB that we absolutely have room for, and a crazy talented corner that is pretty much a straight up replacement for Kayvon Webster.

I felt like these were needs that were moving the team forward rather than fixing past mistakes or major holes. The team needed more speed - they added three 4.4 offensive players, 2 of which can impact ST play. They added a guy that profiles really similarly to Kayvon Webster coming out to me...and realistically if he impacts ST in a similar way for the next few years is a solid pick. If he touches that potential at CB and can slide in as a #2 or #3 guy in 2 years it's a home run.

We have two injury prone backs and Booker is going to be injury prone if he keeps freaking running straight up and we got a guy that looks like he is pro-ready.

I don't actually think Chad Kelly is going to be a starter level guy anytime soon but you have to love the selection from a value standpoint.

I'm super super psyched about McKenzie and Henderson so I'll just be riding that train all year.

To keep the positivity rolling....if we look back in a year and see that we got a starting level LT at pick#20? You have to look at that as a success. I would have LOVED OJ Howard, but if we get a guy that can start at LT for 5 years minimum....that's great at that selection slot. Let's hope he pans out bc it looks like he needs to make some major improvements, but his mindset does seem totally ideal for that.
_________________

team rammy

Joined: 3/10/2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jsthomp2007 wrote:
^^^I don't know about that. It seems like the picks Elway's player selection has been improving since his first draft. There seems to be more players that make an impact than not. I think last year was stellar draft pick where there are probably more than 2-3 players who stick in the NFL for awhile; not necessarily with the Broncos because players move on.

I can see more than 2-3 players in this draft having quality NFL careers.

-Bolles, if he pans out as the LT of the next 5-6 years is good.
-D. Walker, I think is the best pick of them all; think he become bona fide super start.
-C. Henderson - don't think he is a slot guys, but I think between him and McKenzie you certainly get a returners, which the Broncos desperately needed. And, if you want to notice any trends in Elway is that he will copycat. He copied the Seahawks' defensive model. The Broncos got torched by T. Hill last year, so he is trying to find that kind of weapon now...I can almost guarantee that that is what he is going.
-Langley is the replacement for Webster, with probably more upside.
-D. Henderson is probably third down back of the future. I think he is PS his first year.
-Chad Kelly - look if he isn't a goof ball off the field he could be good to great...don't know what you get with him. I am still a Siemien fan and hope he is the long-term solution at QB for the Broncos. But, if he isn't, Chad Kelly has like zero excuses not to be good...he is a coache's son and nephew to a HOFer...if I had that...f***ck...I certainly wouldn't be chatting with you all on this forum.


jst, the point of the thread isn't about this year's class - as everyone has said, we're 2 years away from knowing how they turn out. If you think this thread is meant to address the 2017 class, you're missing the point completely. Given the new info we have from Elway's own words, and his approach in taking Bolles, this year, we do have new info on DEN's processes. That's the area of discussion. It doesn't invalidate anything you said, but understand that's not the point.

FWIW, I'd highlight the points were I think everyone agrees. Then maybe highlight where we've had ongoing discussion and uncertainty. That might help.

Points Of Agreement

1. Elway's Day 2 struggles from 2012-15 (2016-17, way too soon to call). As covered in page 3, the hit rates for Rd2-3 are still way above Elway's (who whiffed 0/8 in getting a regular starter). Whiffing Rd 2-3 is key, because even if Elway hits on 2-3 of those 8 picks, those are likely 2-3 holes filled on our 2017 roster.

2. Elway clearly factors in positional need in Rd1. Again, full credit to germ-x for carrying the flag for years on this. Despite Elway's multiple prior statements that overall BPA is his approach, and going after talent alone, he's clearly gone need 2016 & 2017. AKRNA has given a solid $ argument for positional value (and if you get a top 6-12 LT, or QB/CB/EDGE, likely that's worth way more than a top 6-12 non-elite position - if it's a top 3 non-elite position, however, the $ advantage goes away). So it's not like it's all bad here. But it's clearly different than what Elway's said in the past. As B67 mentioned, probably this is because of the fact that in 2013-15, we were only 1-2 guys away. The problem is, as most agree, we have more than 1-2 holes now.


3. Elway locks in to guys, but unlike prior years, is doing it regardless of how the board is falling. This statement is not guess work, it's hard fact, confirmed by Elway himself. He tried to trade up for Bolles at 1.20 and Walker on multiple attempts from 2.51...when it wasn't needed. Elway's own words - he got lucky. As germ-x pointed out, it really just looked like DEN had no idea of how the board was going to fall this year. And that's in sharp contrast to TBE6's 2012 example of Wolfe, where Elway & co. figured out a 1.25 reach for Wolfe wasn't necessary, so they dropped back to 2.36 and still got Wolfe. Getting max value and extra help instead of trying to give away value when it wasn't needed. I'd point out that this isn't likely Elway's job to be aware of the overall board, as making a big board probably falls to the Director of College Scouting, so the departure in January 2017 for that position might have something to do with our 2017 struggles to project the board. Then again, our 2015-2016 Rd 2 picks with Sambrailo & Gostis suggest this lack of awareness might have been there, too, given how both were (and still are) perceived as big reaches for the draft slot. Either way, though, it's not locking in alone that's an issue (in fact, if the guy is special and head/shoulders above, it's what is called for). But locking in to non-elite guys, or not being aware of where they fit on the board (or both), that's when problems occur.


4. The ideal is that teams don't have one glaring need above all others, so they aren't forced into weighing need vs. best overall talent. This goes back to the LT Whitworth by-passing decision, which germ & champ referred to (and I'll be honest, I was on that train from the start). It's no slight against any of the guys taken - but if we had gone Whitworth in FA, and then gone Bolles 1.20 and say Feeney 2.51, no one would say it wasn't anything but a talent decision. Or if we did go Foster/Howard at 1.20 (trading up for Howard obv), same point. Renck & Klis, and even Elway himself, though - all justified 1.20 with LT as a primary reason, even before the draft pick was in ("we will address LT" - Elway's own words).


5. Elway is still a fantastic GM. Day 3 wizard, and other than Sly Williams, hasn't missed on Day 1 2011-15 picks (2016-17 too early to call). Great FA value finder. Amazing cap and contract manager. But he's not perfect...and sadly, the AFCW is so strong, any weaknesses can be the difference between a good team and a great team. Missing on Day 2, losing value when it's not needed (Bolles/Walker attempts for trades), not being aware of how the draft board is falling, though, it's pretty apparent those are our FO weaknesses right now. Hopefully we're reversing the Day 2 trend, but the 2017 draft clearly showed we don't have a good understanding of how the board is falling, and are willing to pay prices that aren't necessary. Those are things to fix, the top orgs of the NFL, those orgs aren't making those mistakes. It can be argued that the AFCW has clearly become the top division, so our margin for error and missed value is uber-low.


I think those points (underlined) have general agreement - it's amazing how when you look at discussion, we focus on where people agree, and miss what common ground there is. So I post the above.


Points for ongoing discussion:

1. How many holes we have on our roster? Some say we only have 2-3, others say we have multiple.
2. Whether or not our QB's are good enough to mask holes? A top 10 QB can mask some holes for sure...but are we really there?
3. Will Elway & co. continue to take position of need rather than overall BPA, or go back to overall BPA if the gap between needs isn't that big?
4. Will Elway & co. continue to target guys without factoring in how the board fell? This clearly happened in 2017, but maybe it was due to the vacancy of our director for college scouting? Or is it more of the same with the FO hires?


Again, specific-pick wise, we won't be able to project 2017's results for another 2 years. But the approaches are certainly fodder for discussion. The number of ppl who've added to it (and I've missed some, not just those above), thx, it's been great. Awesome discussion so far.
_________________
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: 3609
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

champ11 wrote:
Looks like I missed some fun stuff over the weekend.

I really really did love the approach to the second half of the draft. Added 3 playmakers, a developmental QB that we absolutely have room for, and a crazy talented corner that is pretty much a straight up replacement for Kayvon Webster.

I felt like these were needs that were moving the team forward rather than fixing past mistakes or major holes. The team needed more speed - they added three 4.4 offensive players, 2 of which can impact ST play. They added a guy that profiles really similarly to Kayvon Webster coming out to me...and realistically if he impacts ST in a similar way for the next few years is a solid pick. If he touches that potential at CB and can slide in as a #2 or #3 guy in 2 years it's a home run.

We have two injury prone backs and Booker is going to be injury prone if he keeps freaking running straight up and we got a guy that looks like he is pro-ready.

I don't actually think Chad Kelly is going to be a starter level guy anytime soon but you have to love the selection from a value standpoint.

I'm super super psyched about McKenzie and Henderson so I'll just be riding that train all year.

To keep the positivity rolling....if we look back in a year and see that we got a starting level LT at pick#20? You have to look at that as a success. I would have LOVED OJ Howard, but if we get a guy that can start at LT for 5 years minimum....that's great at that selection slot. Let's hope he pans out bc it looks like he needs to make some major improvements, but his mindset does seem totally ideal for that.


I think Day 3 was more Elway magic (other than McKenzie, but that's less of a an approach issue, but all good either way). I think his home-run approach works best on Day 3, because the whiff rate is so low regardless - going home-run ceiling / whiff floor is a terrific approach then. It's also less dependent on value-based drafting (Day 3 is later, so fewer chances for missed value). Butt & Kelly were home run values even if Kelly only becomes a solid backup. And getting that 4th round pick for 2018 when we couldn't keep all 10 guys was amazing.

Contrast that to Elway's Rd 1-2 approach, where he was willing to throw some of that gained value for Bolles & Walker, when we know it wasn't needed. Again, I think this shows what germ was referring to - Elway & co. had no real awareness of the board, or how it was falling. By Day 3, it doesn't matter as much - the board is all flat, hard to separate. But on Day 1-2, well, that's concerning in a vacuum, but if it leads to unnecessary losses of value, then it's a huge issue going forward, and something to look for and discuss.
_________________
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: Mon May 08, 2017 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see no harm no foul in discussions of trading up. Making phone calls is harmless that's all it is is phone calls now. If Elway acted on his urges to trade up we might be on too something.

He stayed true to his board and landed both players he wanted in rounds 1 and 2 we will see how it pays off.

in 2007 Shanahan talked about trading the farm to get Megatron but it never happened because the price was too high. So no one talks ahoutvit because it's a moot point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
jsthomp2007 wrote:
^^^I don't know about that. It seems like the picks Elway's player selection has been improving since his first draft. There seems to be more players that make an impact than not. I think last year was stellar draft pick where there are probably more than 2-3 players who stick in the NFL for awhile; not necessarily with the Broncos because players move on.

I can see more than 2-3 players in this draft having quality NFL careers.

-Bolles, if he pans out as the LT of the next 5-6 years is good.
-D. Walker, I think is the best pick of them all; think he become bona fide super start.
-C. Henderson - don't think he is a slot guys, but I think between him and McKenzie you certainly get a returners, which the Broncos desperately needed. And, if you want to notice any trends in Elway is that he will copycat. He copied the Seahawks' defensive model. The Broncos got torched by T. Hill last year, so he is trying to find that kind of weapon now...I can almost guarantee that that is what he is going.
-Langley is the replacement for Webster, with probably more upside.
-D. Henderson is probably third down back of the future. I think he is PS his first year.
-Chad Kelly - look if he isn't a goof ball off the field he could be good to great...don't know what you get with him. I am still a Siemien fan and hope he is the long-term solution at QB for the Broncos. But, if he isn't, Chad Kelly has like zero excuses not to be good...he is a coache's son and nephew to a HOFer...if I had that...f***ck...I certainly wouldn't be chatting with you all on this forum.


jst, the point of the thread isn't about this year's class - as everyone has said, we're 2 years away from knowing how they turn out. If you think this thread is meant to address the 2017 class, you're missing the point completely. Given the new info we have from Elway's own words, and his approach in taking Bolles, this year, we do have new info on DEN's processes. That's the area of discussion. It doesn't invalidate anything you said, but understand that's not the point.

FWIW, I'd highlight the points were I think everyone agrees. Then maybe highlight where we've had ongoing discussion and uncertainty. That might help.

Points Of Agreement

1. Elway's Day 2 struggles from 2012-15 (2016-17, way too soon to call). As covered in page 3, the hit rates for Rd2-3 are still way above Elway's (who whiffed 0/8 in getting a regular starter). Whiffing Rd 2-3 is key, because even if Elway hits on 2-3 of those 8 picks, those are likely 2-3 holes filled on our 2017 roster.

2. Elway clearly factors in positional need in Rd1. Again, full credit to germ-x for carrying the flag for years on this. Despite Elway's multiple prior statements that overall BPA is his approach, and going after talent alone, he's clearly gone need 2016 & 2017. AKRNA has given a solid $ argument for positional value (and if you get a top 6-12 LT, or QB/CB/EDGE, likely that's worth way more than a top 6-12 non-elite position - if it's a top 3 non-elite position, however, the $ advantage goes away). So it's not like it's all bad here. But it's clearly different than what Elway's said in the past. As B67 mentioned, probably this is because of the fact that in 2013-15, we were only 1-2 guys away. The problem is, as most agree, we have more than 1-2 holes now.


3. Elway locks in to guys, but unlike prior years, is doing it regardless of how the board is falling. This statement is not guess work, it's hard fact, confirmed by Elway himself. He tried to trade up for Bolles at 1.20 and Walker on multiple attempts from 2.51...when it wasn't needed. Elway's own words - he got lucky. As germ-x pointed out, it really just looked like DEN had no idea of how the board was going to fall this year. And that's in sharp contrast to TBE6's 2012 example of Wolfe, where Elway & co. figured out a 1.25 reach for Wolfe wasn't necessary, so they dropped back to 2.36 and still got Wolfe. Getting max value and extra help instead of trying to give away value when it wasn't needed. I'd point out that this isn't likely Elway's job to be aware of the overall board, as making a big board probably falls to the Director of College Scouting, so the departure in January 2017 for that position might have something to do with our 2017 struggles to project the board. Then again, our 2015-2016 Rd 2 picks with Sambrailo & Gostis suggest this lack of awareness might have been there, too, given how both were (and still are) perceived as big reaches for the draft slot. Either way, though, it's not locking in alone that's an issue (in fact, if the guy is special and head/shoulders above, it's what is called for). But locking in to non-elite guys, or not being aware of where they fit on the board (or both), that's when problems occur.


4. The ideal is that teams don't have one glaring need above all others, so they aren't forced into weighing need vs. best overall talent. This goes back to the LT Whitworth by-passing decision, which germ & champ referred to (and I'll be honest, I was on that train from the start). It's no slight against any of the guys taken - but if we had gone Whitworth in FA, and then gone Bolles 1.20 and say Feeney 2.51, no one would say it wasn't anything but a talent decision. Or if we did go Foster/Howard at 1.20 (trading up for Howard obv), same point. Renck & Klis, and even Elway himself, though - all justified 1.20 with LT as a primary reason, even before the draft pick was in ("we will address LT" - Elway's own words).


5. Elway is still a fantastic GM. Day 3 wizard, and other than Sly Williams, hasn't missed on Day 1 2011-15 picks (2016-17 too early to call). Great FA value finder. Amazing cap and contract manager. But he's not perfect...and sadly, the AFCW is so strong, any weaknesses can be the difference between a good team and a great team. Missing on Day 2, losing value when it's not needed (Bolles/Walker attempts for trades), not being aware of how the draft board is falling, though, it's pretty apparent those are our FO weaknesses right now. Hopefully we're reversing the Day 2 trend, but the 2017 draft clearly showed we don't have a good understanding of how the board is falling, and are willing to pay prices that aren't necessary. Those are things to fix, the top orgs of the NFL, those orgs aren't making those mistakes. It can be argued that the AFCW has clearly become the top division, so our margin for error and missed value is uber-low.


I think those points (underlined) have general agreement - it's amazing how when you look at discussion, we focus on where people agree, and miss what common ground there is. So I post the above.


Points for ongoing discussion:

1. How many holes we have on our roster? Some say we only have 2-3, others say we have multiple.
2. Whether or not our QB's are good enough to mask holes? A top 10 QB can mask some holes for sure...but are we really there?
3. Will Elway & co. continue to take position of need rather than overall BPA, or go back to overall BPA if the gap between needs isn't that big?
4. Will Elway & co. continue to target guys without factoring in how the board fell? This clearly happened in 2017, but maybe it was due to the vacancy of our director for college scouting? Or is it more of the same with the FO hires?


Again, specific-pick wise, we won't be able to project 2017's results for another 2 years. But the approaches are certainly fodder for discussion. The number of ppl who've added to it (and I've missed some, not just those above), thx, it's been great. Awesome discussion so far.


Oh well, why did you bring up Bolles, then? He was selected in the 2017 draft, wasn't he?
_________________
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: Mon May 08, 2017 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jst Bolles gets brought up because of the fact it confirms Elway clearly factors positional need into Rd 1 - contrary to what Elway has said in the past. And Elway confirmed he tried to trade up for Bolles when it wasn't needed - so locking in and not being aware of how the board is falling is the 2nd reason to bring him (and Walker) up.

Those are 2 philosophy / approach changes from Elway's past. Bolles/Walker attempts to trade up when not needed and factoring in positional need for Rd1 It's the approach / philosophy changes that are being discussed. Results-wise no one can tell now, need 2 years to tell - certainly ok but we won't know for sure how the pucks work putt. But we can discuss approach & philosophy changes right now. See the difference?
_________________
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 Mon May 08, 2017 12:40 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thebestever6 wrote:
I see no harm no foul in discussions of trading up. Making phone calls is harmless that's all it is is phone calls now. If Elway acted on his urges to trade up we might be on too something.

He stayed true to his board and landed both players he wanted in rounds 1 and 2 we will see how it pays off.

in 2007 Shanahan talked about trading the farm to get Megatron but it never happened because the price was too high. So no one talks ahoutvit because it's a moot point.


Any trade up would have cost 3.82 or 3.101 in Rd 1. Or 3.101 - 5.145 range in Rd 2. And again Elway confirmed he didn't back out on his own, he just got lucky.

You see no harm - but Elway's own words disagree with you - in his words, he got lucky. Plus the process behind the result is even more important - if the process of board awareness isn't there next year then Elway may not be so fortunate - and approach-wise, no org wants to rely on getting lucky going forward. If it's addressed and fixed for next year, though, then all good. Either way it's worth discussing.
_________________
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: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
jst Bolles gets brought up because of the fact it confirms Elway clearly factors positional need into Rd 1 - contrary to what Elway has said in the past. And Elway confirmed he tried to trade up for Bolles when it wasn't needed - so locking in and not being aware of how the board is falling is the 2nd reason to bring him (and Walker) up.

Those are 2 philosophy / approach changes from Elway's past. Bolles/Walker attempts to trade up when not needed and factoring in positional need for Rd1 It's the approach / philosophy changes that are being discussed. Results-wise no one can tell now, need 2 years to tell - certainly ok but we won't know for sure how the pucks work putt. But we can discuss approach & philosophy changes right now. See the difference?


Oh okay. So, we aren't talking about the 2017 draft class, but we are talking about Bolles and Walker.

I hate to think of Elway trading up for need when he did with McKenzie as a returner. Ooops...he is a 2017 draft pick too. I guess we will talk about him in two years, and we will assess the situation and make a tradition out of it.
_________________
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
AKRNA


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 6952
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before we get too caught up in the Chad Kelly love we need to remember he has ADD. His coach mentioned they had to simplify the playbook for Kelly.

Maybe with he and Paxton both having problems with the playbook we could change it a little. You know, some connect the dots, pop ups, coloring pages? Something to make learning more interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AKRNA wrote:
Before we get too caught up in the Chad Kelly love we need to remember he has ADD. His coach mentioned they had to simplify the playbook for Kelly.

Maybe with he and Paxton both having problems with the playbook we could change it a little. You know, some connect the dots, pop ups, coloring pages? Something to make learning more interesting.


But, he is a 2017 draft pick AKRNA. So, we won't talk about the ADD for two years. But I always liked scratch and sniff things.

Oh hey...a kite.
_________________
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: Mon May 08, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jsthomp2007 wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
jst Bolles gets brought up because of the fact it confirms Elway clearly factors positional need into Rd 1 - contrary to what Elway has said in the past. And Elway confirmed he tried to trade up for Bolles when it wasn't needed - so locking in and not being aware of how the board is falling is the 2nd reason to bring him (and Walker) up.

Those are 2 philosophy / approach changes from Elway's past. Bolles/Walker attempts to trade up when not needed and factoring in positional need for Rd1 It's the approach / philosophy changes that are being discussed. Results-wise no one can tell now, need 2 years to tell - certainly ok but we won't know for sure how the pucks work putt. But we can discuss approach & philosophy changes right now. See the difference?


Oh okay. So, we aren't talking about the 2017 draft class, but we are talking about Bolles and Walker.

I hate to think of Elway trading up for need when he did with McKenzie as a returner. Ooops...he is a 2017 draft pick too. I guess we will talk about him in two years, and we will assess the situation and make a tradition out of it.


Come on, jst, you know full well there's a thread on rating the draft, and one on predicting (play the GM) - yet this thread has from the start, been one focused not on the 2016-7 results (and it's stated that even from the beginning), since it's too early to call those drafts. From the OP, the thread's been focused on drafts where we know results, and but on the changes in approach in the recent drafts - since approach is the only thing we can be sure on (positional need/locking in) - and again, not guess work, but from Elway's own words & action.

To be fair to you, by your first reply you're just unhappy there's criticism, as you labelled it bashing Elway. Clearly TBE6 sees it wasn't that, and I think after so many contributions, even you'd conclude now that the thread's not simply bashing Elway. Either way, though, that's OK, it's your right to feel how you do. Again, though, I'd point out that it's been balanced criticism from the start and continues in that vein. The depth of discussion and contribution from everyone cited reflects that. You're entitled to your opinion, but let's not try to throw strawman arguments on the results of the draft for 2017 - because as so many have said, right now, no one can now - those who like, dislike, or are indifferent on the picks. We need time to know. Until then, as B67 pointed out, we simply don't wait to talk about the picks - but here, we can then focus on what we do know - approach changes that Elway has/hasn't done. So the discussion here is on the approach and how it's different, for good or bad - and unlike the guess work involved with predicting the draft results 2+ years down the line, we're working with actual info Elway has confirmed. If you want to bring up players and how they will do, well, there's a reason there are other threads for that - because it just goes into a back and forth for/against, with no certainty. Here, we have approaches that for better or worse, we know Elway's adopted. Perhaps you see the difference already, but wish to continue on - that's your call.

If you think the approach Elway uses are all still good, no worries - that's also your right. Again, when you look at the scope of the discussion, there's a lot more common ground than differences - but the differences are what separate really good orgs from the top orgs each season. It's worth discussing if the changes in approach are going to help, or hurt. The best orgs do this all the time. Our fanbase should be no different.

On that note, I'll ask again on the areas where there isn't consensus:

1. How many holes we have on our roster? Some say we only have 2-3, others say we have multiple. This answer, as a few members have suggested (B67, germ) - could easily explain Elway's different approach now than in 2011-13. What say you?

2. Whether or not our QB's are good enough to mask holes? A top 10 QB can mask some holes for sure...but are we really there?

3. Will Elway & co. continue to take position of need rather than overall BPA, or go back to overall BPA if the gap between needs isn't that big? champ & germ point out that if we don't have this need, maybe we go back to the value-based approach Germany referred to in the SEA article.

4. Will Elway & co. continue to target guys without factoring in how the board fell? This clearly happened in 2017, but maybe it was due to the vacancy of our director for college scouting? Or is it more of the same with the FO hires? Less certain either way, but if you accept germ's observation that the FO didn't have a good idea of how the board went this year in Rd 1-2, then was this a fluke? Or does it happen again?

Either way, I've got nothing else to add either way until more new points/info come in, so I leave the floor for others to weigh in.
_________________
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 Mon May 08, 2017 1:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You forgot about Chad Kelly!!
_________________
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
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
Page 5 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