Jump to content

2021 Broncos Draft Thread


broncosfan_101

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Glasgow’s not going anywhere. He underwhelmed last season, but was far from bad. It would be crazy to jettison our one vet on the interior and leave those three spots to a struggling Risner, a horrible Cush, and three complete unknowns in Meinerz, Schlottmann, and Muti. 

Well, I never said Glasgow was bad, thinking behind my premise was he failed to live up to his contract, Paton has no loyalty to the previous regime's acquisitions, he probably saw plenty of Graham in DET and he "likes his darts". If Muti steps up (I think he has more talent than Glasgow) , could we get off some his contract to add to our Cap space AND add a player or picks ?? Obviously MM will have some say too but with Paton, is it really out of the realm of possibilities ? Not saying anything bad about Glasgow, but his production didn't match his salary and new GM's often want to clean house for their guys, just ask Phillip Lindsey

And when to players blossom into "veteran" status, we'll have Bolles in his 5th year, James in his 6+ season, Dalton going into his 3rd and Munchek guiding it all, there's a lot of Oline leadership IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

The coordination between the RT and Glasgow was a mess as the RT spot was a disaster.  I think Glasgow will play better and avoid injury if he and James can work together in the offseason and get in sync...  I like Glasgow overall.

So, seems like Cush is a big part of the right side problem. I didn't see much film last year but when he's uncovered he starts drifting left almost immediately and absolutely abandons the right side A gap. More than a few times I watched him double a guy Risner was controlling and someone came through untouched on the other side.

See what you think. If it's just a bad tendency or what. 

Also, curious to get your take on Risner. I'm not sure he should be inside. He seems to get beat physically way to often.

I'll come up with some more but for now that's all I can think of.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems there are rumours that Paton didn’t take Fields because he expected a deal for Rodgers. 

If that is the case then it is poor judgement from him - you only decide not to draft Fields if you have Rodgers in the bag.

As the saying goes - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AKRNA said:

So, seems like Cush is a big part of the right side problem. I didn't see much film last year but when he's uncovered he starts drifting left almost immediately and absolutely abandons the right side A gap. More than a few times I watched him double a guy Risner was controlling and someone came through untouched on the other side.

See what you think. If it's just a bad tendency or what. 

Also, curious to get your take on Risner. I'm not sure he should be inside. He seems to get beat physically way to often.

I'll come up with some more but for now that's all I can think of.

 

That makes sense... The offensive line was a mess at the beginning of the year but did get better as time went on... The rookie center certainly didn't help.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

It seems there are rumours that Paton didn’t take Fields because he expected a deal for Rodgers. 

If that is the case then it is poor judgement from him - you only decide not to draft Fields if you have Rodgers in the bag.

As the saying goes - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I do not believe that... Paton is not a guy that relies on non confirmed information.  I think this is hard for some to hear, but he said it when being pushed on Fields and Lance before the draft... "We like our room.  We do not want to bring in a guy that isn't even as good as what you have... they may not be able to compete.  We want competition in the QB room but it has to be the right guy".  They brought in Teddy a few days later.  Agree or not, Patons evaluation is that Drew is as good or better than those two in terms of being ready for next year.  The fact that he passed on Fields just confirms this.  I agree with his evaluations and what I like best about Lock is that mistakes do not phase him...  He has that gunslinger mindset and while when he does not know what he is doing... it might lead to more mistakes... those mistakes will go away and the ratio of positive to negative plays will improve with experience.  I think Lock is going to get comeback player of the year next year.  Not because his play will be amazing, but simply because the expectations of people are so off...  He will be the talk of the league and Paton and Vic will look like genius for just following their evaluations and ignoring the national media that only relies on what has happened and can not see past the present in predicting the future.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I do not believe that... Paton is not a guy that relies on non confirmed information.  I think this is hard for some to hear, but he said it when being pushed on Fields and Lance before the draft... "We like our room.  We do not want to bring in a guy that isn't even as good as what you have... they may not be able to compete.  We want competition in the QB room but it has to be the right guy".  They brought in Teddy a few days later.  Agree or not, Patons evaluation is that Drew is as good or better than those two in terms of being ready for next year.  The fact that he passed on Fields just confirms this.  I agree with his evaluations and what I like best about Lock is that mistakes do not phase him...  He has that gunslinger mindset and while when he does not know what he is doing... it might lead to more mistakes... those mistakes will go away and the ratio of positive to negative plays will improve with experience.  I think Lock is going to get comeback player of the year next year.  Not because his play will be amazing, but simply because the expectations of people are so off...  He will be the talk of the league and Paton and Vic will look like genius for just following their evaluations and ignoring the national media that only relies on what has happened and can not see past the present in predicting the future.  

1. Its all well and good to say 'we like our room' - what did you expect him to say? - maybe 'Lock is sh*te and we need to find a better QB'. The the 'room' they liked was Lock, Driskel and Rypien - seriously.

2. Then they brought in Bridgewater - and he is currently streets ahead of Lock in the 'competition'

3. Lock is better than Lance in terms of the fact that Lance needs at least a season before he is remotely ready to play in the NFL. He is a high ceiling / bust type of guy. However, it is debatable even at this point whether Lock is better than Fields. Both have flaws  - except Lock has been in the NFL for two years and still has the flaws. Furthermore, Fields was doing stuff in college last year that Lock still hasn't mastered.

4. I like your optimism about Lock and here is hoping you are right. The problem is that Lock has shown little evidence that he is capable of such an improvement. Even by improving somewhat towards the end of last season - Lock was still 33rd of QBs who started a game last year. 

5. The deficiencies in Lock were brought home to me by the comparison Tim Jenkins did between Lock and Bridgewater - he wasn't even at the races with Bridgewater.

6. If Paton succeeds in getting Rodgers (and that may be more down to Rodgers wanting to be in Denver than anything Paton does) then he saves his GM career in Denver. Or - if Lock becomes a franchise QB (very unlikely at this stage) then he saves his GM career. But if neither happens and either / both Fields and / or Jones go on to become a franchise QB then Paton deserves to be sacked. He knew QB was the one big issue to be resolved and he failed to pick a QB that fell into his lap. Fields might never become an NFL starter (any more than Lock) - but you still have to pick the guy when you have such an opportunity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cutler06 said:

Well, I never said Glasgow was bad, thinking behind my premise was he failed to live up to his contract, Paton has no loyalty to the previous regime's acquisitions, he probably saw plenty of Graham in DET and he "likes his darts". If Muti steps up (I think he has more talent than Glasgow) , could we get off some his contract to add to our Cap space AND add a player or picks ?? Obviously MM will have some say too but with Paton, is it really out of the realm of possibilities ? Not saying anything bad about Glasgow, but his production didn't match his salary and new GM's often want to clean house for their guys, just ask Phillip Lindsey

And when to players blossom into "veteran" status, we'll have Bolles in his 5th year, James in his 6+ season, Dalton going into his 3rd and Munchek guiding it all, there's a lot of Oline leadership IMO.  

So even if Muti, Meinerz, and Cush all have remarkable camps, they’re all super cheap, and there’s really no reason to move on from Glasgow yet. Overpaid depth is still better than no depth. That’s when you try to move him next offseason, when his contract is easier for others to take.

And I did specifically say veteran “on the interior.” I don’t think Risner qualifies for vet status yet since we don’t really know what to expect from him consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

He knew QB was the one big issue to be resolved and he failed to pick a QB that fell into his lap. Fields might never become an NFL starter (any more than Lock) - but you still have to pick the guy when you have such an opportunity.

I think thats where the disagreement is. We had lot's more issues to be resolved, like at CB for one. We had almost no talent at the position either. We had serious depth issues across the board.

QB was an is an issue, yes, but by no means the only one.

Personally I love the additions in the secondary. Between FA and the draft we have 3 new CB's on the roster, all of them better than last years starters. Added a good young slot CB and two promising safeties. What better additions can you have in a pass happy AFC West.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AKRNA said:

I think thats where the disagreement is. We had lot's more issues to be resolved, like at CB for one. We had almost no talent at the position either. We had serious depth issues across the board.

Since the Superbowl the Broncos have gone :

2016 - 9-7 with Trevor Siemian and Paxton Lynch

2017 - 5-11 with Trevor Siemian, Paxton Lynch and Brock Osweiler

2018 - 6-10 with Case Keenum 

2019 - 7-9 with Joe Flacco, Brandon Allen and Drew Lock

2020 - 5-11 with Drew Lock, Jeff Driskel and Brett Rypien

 

Quarterback is most definitely, by far, the biggest hole on the roster. If you don't have a competent QB you cannot win games - no matter how many CBs you have. Lock was 4-9 last year and one of the worst QBs in the NFL

And thanks to Paton failing to take Fields when he dropped into his lap - QB continues to be the biggest hole on the roster. His one chance to sort QB for the next 3-4 years is by getting Rodgers (and he may have to give up one of those CBs as part of the package). If he fails to do that he will end up having to sell the farm to get close to drafting a QB that will be as much a shot in the dark as Fields (that is if he still has a job after this blunder).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 9:29 PM, broncosfan_101 said:

I wonder if the front office is as down on this CB class as I am. At 2.40, you’re probably choosing between Stokes and Campbell, who are fine! But probably not top 50 guys. And then after them, I’ve got a steep cliff. If they wanted a corner (and they should), they needed to get one early.

But for real...trade down.

Even Stokes and Campbell were gone at 2.40. Although Samuel Jr. was there, which I didn’t expect (and would’ve loved.) But for real, what a gamble it would’ve been if they valued CB this much and risked it all on Asante Samuel Jr. falling out of the top 39. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Even Stokes and Campbell were gone at 2.40. Although Samuel Jr. was there, which I didn’t expect (and would’ve loved.) But for real, what a gamble it would’ve been if they valued CB this much and risked it all on Asante Samuel Jr. falling out of the top 39. 

Even though I picked JOK at 1.20 in the GM game with the Chicago trade-back scenario, I can't blame anyone for taking Farley there instead - Samuel Jr. falling past 40 was impossible to predict.    LAC made out like bandits getting Slater at 1.13 and Samuel at 2.47 - I think they quoted a 3% chance Samuel would be there pre-draft.     

LAC killed it first 2 picks - they reached Rd3, otherwise they could have either Perkins as another pass rusher or an IOL like Wyatt Davis, or Meinerz.   That's unbelievable that they mined such value (obv I won't complain that Meinerz fell to us).   

It's hindsight, but I imagine if Paton knew he could get Farley at 1.20, he may have considered the move to get the addtional 2022 1st.  Still, there's a fair amount of risk with Farley and his back, but if you want to take a 1st and still get a difference-maker at 2.35 with Javonte Williams, Farley + 2022 1st/4th from Chicago is the only viable alternative.   Will be interesting to see how that ends up working out.   Obviously if we still end up with QB addressed and even moreso this season (A-Rod come on down), then no one will really care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Even though I picked JOK at 1.20 in the GM game with the Chicago trade-back scenario, I can't blame anyone for taking Farley there instead - Samuel Jr. falling past 40 was impossible to predict.    LAC made out like bandits getting Slater at 1.13 and Samuel at 2.47 - I think they quoted a 3% chance Samuel would be there pre-draft.     

LAC killed it first 2 picks - they reached Rd3, otherwise they could have either Perkins as another pass rusher or an IOL like Wyatt Davis, or Meinerz.   That's unbelievable that they mined such value (obv I won't complain that Meinerz fell to us).   

It's hindsight, but I imagine if Paton knew he could get Farley at 1.20, he may have considered the move to get the addtional 2022 1st.  Still, there's a fair amount of risk with Farley and his back, but if you want to take a 1st and still get a difference-maker at 2.35 with Javonte Williams, Farley + 2022 1st/4th from Chicago is the only viable alternative.   Will be interesting to see how that ends up working out.   Obviously if we still end up with QB addressed and even moreso this season (A-Rod come on down), then no one will really care.

The reward if Farley ends up better than Surtain is tiny. I think that upside is certainly there, but legitimately, we’re talking about a potential top 5-6 CB in the NFL in Farley vs a top 8-10 CB in Surtain. Minuscule. The risk profile though? Enormous. Surtain at 1.9 is a significantly better pick than Farley at 1.20 (or wherever that trade down ended up.) The future 1st obviously helps a lot, but I don’t think Farley + 2022 1st over Surtain is a slam dunk in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

The reward if Farley ends up better than Surtain is tiny. I think that upside is certainly there, but legitimately, we’re talking about a potential top 5-6 CB in the NFL in Farley vs a top 8-10 CB in Surtain. Minuscule. The risk profile though? Enormous. Surtain at 1.9 is a significantly better pick than Farley at 1.20 (or wherever that trade down ended up.) The future 1st obviously helps a lot, but I don’t think Farley + 2022 1st over Surtain is a slam dunk in any way.

if we don’t need a QB I’d agree.  But given the QB need and the very real chance Chicago’s 2022 1st has major appeal to sellers - that’s why it’s a winner move if you are passing on Fields.   The 2 2022 1sts and assessment of Chicago’s draft spot just puts us in the driver’s seat.  
 

If we end up with QB addressed no one minds taking less risk for sure.  But to get the elite ceiling QB or top 6 QB vet, some risks need to be taken.  This would have been one of those.   Again if we get Surtain and address QB all good.   But if we miss on the QB trade market because we got outbid - I know I’d rather have the QB and Farley than QB limbo and Surtain.    
 

The extra 1st isn’t the reason to take Farley’s risk by itself - it’s if that’s the capital we need to get our QB.   It’s certainly the most attractive capital to sellers.  If Paton already has this mapped out and doesn’t need it, then all good.  If we get outbid and don’t get QB addressed long-term this was clearly the missed opp.  

 

 

 

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This likely explains JOK’s fall to 2.52.   FWIW if it’s an arrhythmia like atrial fibrillation this is usually treated by an ablation procedure.   So this is likely a huge value win by Cleveland.  
 

 

Edited by Broncofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...