2020 College Prospects

[Cutler06]

11 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Don't look now, but Bolles/Risner had another great outing. James is a huge upgrade over Wilkinson. McGovern had the best game I've seen from him and Schlottman, although he had a few mental errors played pretty well for Leary. 

We could use a CB, but also our DL is pretty thin. Excellent coaching has gone a long way toward minimizing our lack of talent in lots of areas.

Guys like Kinlaw, D. Brown, Biadasz, Ruggs, Fulton......... will be available when we pick. Lets hear it for BPA. We get 5 picks in the top 100. Solid ballplayers will thrive with the staff we have.

It is fun thinking what Ruggs could bring. Facing an aerial attack featuring Sutton, Fant, Lock and Ruggs could be a real nightmare for DC's.

 

Not worried about Risner, but I do take note that Bolles rise has coincided with the addition of our new mobile QB's. While it also could be a little on Munchek's coaching as well, I can't see us not grabbing a new LT, I want to ensure out new QB is safe as possible.

Our DL is on my list but our depth is thin due to injuries, but I agree an influx of more DL talent is due.

Hard for me to think we won't be adding speedy ILB, Fangio's D goes into OVER-DRIVE with someone like Dylan Moses, Isaiah Simmons or Kenneth Murray.

Jeudy, Ruggs or Lamb would make our aerial attack potent to say the least but that I think we have a decent enough WR corp right now that we could wait on some lower round WR's like Tylan Wallace, Devin Duvernay or Justin Jefferson. 

 

[BroncoBruin]

We have a homerun threat at RB in Lindsay, a TE with 4.5 speed in Fant, Sutton is a downfield threat even with guys draped all over him, our QB has a cannon to make any throw and being aggressive is really his identity. 

You add a true burner like Ruggs or Jalen Reagor or KJ Hamler...there's no part of the field a defense doesn't have to worry about covering. Add the expected year 2 Munchak bump + resources to improve a couple spots on the OL via the draft or FA...the ingredients for building a special offense are there. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by BroncoBruin

[AKRNA]

1 minute ago, BroncoBruin said:

We have a homerun threat at RB in Lindsay, a TE with 4.5 speed in Fant, Sutton is a downfield threat even with guys draped all over him, our QB has a cannon to make any throw and being aggressive is really his identity. 

You add a true burner like Ruggs or Jalen Reagor or KJ Hamler...there's no part of the field a defense doesn't have to worry about covering. Add the expected year 2 Munchak bump + resources to improve a couple spots on the OL via the draft or FA...this thing might be cooking. 

Thats kinda my thinking. Add in Scangarello being in his 2nd year as a play caller and the players all familiar with the system it's hard not to be a little excited.

[jsthomp2007]

And the Broncos have $90MM in salary cap space.  However, I would like to see them keep it young.  I like this youth movement.  

[BowserBroncos]

12 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

They still need a LB next to AJ. 

Tho I would like a new LB, Davis isn't that bad as the story tells. I would love to see Danny T back in free agency, but if we can't pick up a new LB I don't want to go ILB early in the draft.

Would rather stick with Davis and draft for depth on day 3. We need LT, RG (maybe C), WR (possibly two, tho I like Patrick), CB and DL more.

[Scoundrel]

10 hours ago, AKRNA said:

Don't look now, but Bolles/Risner had another great outing. James is a huge upgrade over Wilkinson. McGovern had the best game I've seen from him and Schlottman, although he had a few mental errors played pretty well for Leary. 

We could use a CB, but also our DL is pretty thin. Excellent coaching has gone a long way toward minimizing our lack of talent in lots of areas.

Guys like Kinlaw, D. Brown, Biadasz, Ruggs, Fulton......... will be available when we pick. Lets hear it for BPA. We get 5 picks in the top 100. Solid ballplayers will thrive with the staff we have.

It is fun thinking what Ruggs could bring. Facing an aerial attack featuring Sutton, Fant, Lock and Ruggs could be a real nightmare for DC's.

 

I’d almost bet a year salary he won’t be there when we pick. Almost because injury could still happen. 

[broncos67]

Assuming we stay in this general area of the draft (10-12 or so), Denver is going to be able to really let the board fall to them if they want. There's potential for some DL guys like Epenesa or Kinlaw, potentially Grant Delpit (though I'm skeptical they take a safety), and a whole host of WRs.

To me, depending on how FA goes, Denver needs to go nab a dynamic offensive playmaker. They've struck out trying to find these "value" WRs like DaeSean Hamilton. Go get Ruggs or Lamb and pair them with Fant/Lindsay/Sutton/Lock and let the kids play.

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, broncos67 said:

Assuming we stay in this general area of the draft (10-12 or so), Denver is going to be able to really let the board fall to them if they want. There's potential for some DL guys like Epenesa or Kinlaw, potentially Grant Delpit (though I'm skeptical they take a safety), and a whole host of WRs.

To me, depending on how FA goes, Denver needs to go nab a dynamic offensive playmaker. They've struck out trying to find these "value" WRs like DaeSean Hamilton. Go get Ruggs or Lamb and pair them with Fant/Lindsay/Sutton/Lock and let the kids play.

The thing is, the WR class is so loaded, if DEN is picking around 10-12, they can get that homerun threat WR in Rd2.    BPA for a trench guy is still the area to hit.   The T class is so good, and we've seen this before with Bolles.    1-2 games where he's better, and then followed by regression.    This is one of the few times where we dont' have to reach to get a foundation T piece.   

If it was a reach, no thanks.  But depth of talent matters - we can get a 83-84 grade T Rd1 (as an example) and a 80 grade WR Rd2.   We can't get a 80+ grade T rd2, and the WR's after Jeudy goes aren't elite (Jeudy's a 90+).  

P.S.  It's nice to take QB off the board in the discussion, though.    God, it's been too long.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Broncofan

[broncos67]

15 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The thing is, the WR class is so loaded, if DEN is picking around 10-12, they can get that homerun threat WR in Rd2.    BPA for a trench guy is still the area to hit.   The T class is so good, and we've seen this before with Bolles.    1-2 games where he's better, and then followed by regression.    This is one of the few times where we dont' have to reach to get a foundation T piece.   

If it was a reach, no thanks.  But depth of talent matters - we can get a 83-84 grade T Rd1 (as an example) and a 80 grade WR Rd2.   We can't get a 80+ grade T rd2, and the WR's after Jeudy goes aren't elite (Jeudy's a 90+).  

P.S.  It's nice to take QB off the board in the discussion, though.    God, it's been too long.

Depth of talent matters, but I want to just see Denver take the best player, period. Still work to be done building this team. Ruggs/Lamb are significantly better than some other WRs in this class IMO.

[Broncofan]

8 minutes ago, broncos67 said:

Depth of talent matters, but I want to just see Denver take the best player, period. Still work to be done building this team. Ruggs/Lamb are significantly better than some other WRs in this class IMO.

I love Lamb, you could convince me he's a high-80's guy, and worth taking as a true BPA player.   But if you have six 83-84 WR's and 1 83-84 T, you take the T.   Clearly the best player, no argument.   

My point - taking the 11th guy on the board as WR when the 13th, 14th, 15th, 20th and 22nd guy, are all WR's, with 4-5 more in the 30's and the T is 12th, and then only 1 other guy in top 20, and then only 2 guys in top 30-35, that's where I disagree, especially if the rank is negligible.   Depth of talent at the position matters a ton if the immediate talent difference isn't so obvious.   If there's a clear difference in talent, sure.   But I'm not so sure there will be between the 2nd-3rd T (I really need to see Austin Jackson more, sucks that he's in the Pac-12, so hard to evaluate that) and who will be left.    And as ppl know, I'm a HUGE BPA proponent - but here, the way the class is shaping up, I'm not so sure the WR/T separation is there, if so it's microscopic, and that's where depth of talent matters. 
 

FTR, I think Lamb goes in top 10, and Jeudy somewhere in 5-6 range (2 QB's, Chase Young, Andrew Thomas and then Okudah/Jeudy, and frankly, the 2nd QB will be a huge reach, but we've seen it happen year in year out).   After those guys go, it becomes a drop in tier from the 90+ class.   I could easily see Lamb as the 2nd WR taken after Jeudy.   You could convince me that Lamb belongs in his own mid-high 80's tier, though.   Ruggs has the benefit of having such a ridiculous peer group, he gets matched up against the 3rd best CB...so not so sure.    Lamb gets the top guy or double/bracket coverage all the time, so more convinced there.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Broncofan

[champ11]

46 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The thing is, the WR class is so loaded, if DEN is picking around 10-12, they can get that homerun threat WR in Rd2.    BPA for a trench guy is still the area to hit.   The T class is so good, and we've seen this before with Bolles.    1-2 games where he's better, and then followed by regression.    This is one of the few times where we dont' have to reach to get a foundation T piece.   

If it was a reach, no thanks.  But depth of talent matters - we can get a 83-84 grade T Rd1 (as an example) and a 80 grade WR Rd2.   We can't get a 80+ grade T rd2, and the WR's after Jeudy goes aren't elite (Jeudy's a 90+).  

P.S.  It's nice to take QB off the board in the discussion, though.    God, it's been too long.

This draft is going to be really fun. We can add BPA and not worry about QB. 

[Broncofan]

14 minutes ago, champ11 said:

This draft is going to be really fun. We can add BPA and not worry about QB. 

Yeah, and remember - Lock was in play 1.10, 1.20, then 2.42.   Imagine if we went Lock earlier, it's OK if he ends up working out - but we miss out on 1 of Fant OR Risner.   Lock's still not guaranteed to work out, but we already have Risner (a guaranteed perennial Pro-Bowler IMO already) and Fant (who's finally showing the promise, albeit mostly it's busted tackle plays that are padding his stats, but any rookie progress as a TE is fantastic).    As much as we see how much having a decent QB influences the O, wasting picks on failed QB's and missing out on Fant/Risner-level talents really doubles down on the pain.  Glad we won't be in that boat this year with a suddenly meh draft class.

Worst-case, Lock face-plants, we can worry about this next year.  But that's less likely, and more importantly, nothing Lock does in the next 3 games (which are much easier for the last 2 as well) will justify taking QB Day 1 OR Day 2 - so yeah, fun times.   Will be a nice change not to have to sweat out a horrible reach for QB as the fear.   

I also went to Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame both times with my teen kids (and loved it) for Day 1 Draft Night on consecutive years, so this year no such event, so don't have to cringe trying to check my phone on a BR break when we're up lol.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Broncofan
Obv can't miss on both guys lol - fixed

[champ11]

6 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Yeah, and remember - Lock was in play 1.10, 1.20, then 2.42.   Imagine if we went Lock, it's OK if he ends up working out - but we miss out on Fant AND Risner.   Lock's still not guaranteed to work out, but we already have Risner (a guaranteed perennial Pro-Bowler IMO already) and Fant (who's finally showing the promise, albeit mostly it's busted tackle plays that are padding his stats, but any rookie progress as a TE is fantastic).    As much as we see how much having a decent QB influences the O, wasting picks on failed QB's and missing out on Fant/Risner-level talents really doubles down on the pain.  Glad we won't be in that boat this year with a suddenly meh draft class.

Worst-case, Lock face-plants, we can worry about this next year.  But that's less likely, and more importantly, nothing Lock does in the next 3 games (which are much easier for the last 2 as well) will justify taking QB Day 1 OR Day 2 - so yeah, fun times.   Will be a nice change not to have to sweat out a horrible reach for QB as the fear.   

I also went to Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame both times with my teen kids (and loved it) for Day 1 Draft Night on consecutive years, so this year no such event, so don't have to cringe trying to check my phone on a BR break when we're up lol.

Yeah I mean...hard to be completely sold on Lock after 2 games. Who knows what happens. But I'm comfortable on going into next season with him as a starter with a stabilized coaching staff and just add talent to this team. Worst case scenario he bombs and we still need a QB. Best case scenario....we got our guy 

[BroncoBruin]

On that note, D-Bag has been pushing one of the worst narratives I've ever heard: the Broncos should have taken Drew Lock at 10 because that shows "belief" in him, more important than also having a stud TE + a future 3rd. 

[broncos67]

7 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

On that note, D-Bag has been pushing one of the worst narratives I've ever heard: the Broncos should have taken Drew Lock at 10 because that shows "belief" in him, more important than also having a stud TE + a future 3rd. 

I love how he's getting beaten over the head every which way over this. It's such an awful take.