With the 5th pick in the NFL draft the Broncos select....

[Broncofan]

3 hours ago, Royal_VT said:

 

I am not understanding the Lauletta push here. Keenum, Lynch, Kelly on the roster. I know not many believers in Kelly, but for whatever reason the noise coming out right now is that Denver likes him. Not sure it makes sense to draft a 4th QB unless its the QB of the future.

Other than that, 100% agree.

 

1 hour ago, BaldyBronco said:

I feel like we have to draft a QB this year.  I think Kyle can beat out one of the two.  IMO it's the best route.  He's a scrapper.  If Chad Kelly can keep it straight and keep growing up, he does have a chance.  He is the only argument I think there is to NOT draft a guy.  But I think all three need to have a young arm behind then as a reminder that we are not happy with the position and a late 4th Rounder ish pick is perfect to make that known

I think we have to recognize that Lynch is likely a bust pick.   We won't cut him this year, but if he can't show anything, it's time to move on after this year.    Keenum is a 1-2 year bridge in all likelihood.   Kelly is intriguing, but he's got a LOT to overcome to be a league-average or better QB.  And he could just be a backup at best.     So honestly, to look at 2019+, it's not like we have any guy we feel good about long-term yet.

And now here's the key part to the above - 2019's draft class is AWFUL at the top end.    There is literally no QB who's even in the top 3-4 of this year's class at the same stage of their college career.  And the 3rd-4th guys are clearly behind the Mike White/Lauletta tier, too.   

Now, don't get me wrong - I want nothing to do with a Day 2 pick on QB if we're talking Lauletta or White.  But on Day 3?   We probably need to at least think about it.   Because going 2019 college QB class is not a good plan.  Frankly, I think it's why Elway took Keenum, because in the worst-case scenario, he keeps him for 2 seasons and skips the 2019 class.  

[BaldyBronco]

Good take.

All of our speculation will always circle back to how Elway and Kubiak grade these QB's.  They have done an incredible job keeping everyone in the dark.

They could have White/Laulletta/Rudolph ranked ahead of one of the big 4 for all we know.

 

[jsthomp2007]

You all keep talking about drafting a QB....I don't think it will happen...maybe in the 7th again.  But, I think Elway and Co. are going to let Chad and Pax fight it out as the long-term solution for the team.  And, I guess giving Pax more time to develop makes sense...Kelly just has the pedigree and competitiveness that I don't see from Lynch...I think in two years, if Keenum isn't lighting the world on fire, Chad is your QOTF.   I say this without masturbating over the thought of Chad Kelly...but think the has just as much upside and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Mayfield.  

 

[Broncofan]

 

21 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

You all keep talking about drafting a QB....I don't think it will happen...maybe in the 7th again.  But, I think Elway and Co. are going to let Chad and Pax fight it out as the long-term solution for the team.  And, I guess giving Pax more time to develop makes sense...Kelly just has the pedigree and competitiveness that I don't see from Lynch...I think in two years, if Keenum isn't lighting the world on fire, Chad is your QOTF.   I say this without masturbating over the thought of Chad Kelly...but think the has just as much upside and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Mayfield.  

 

I pretty much guarantee we aren't taking QB in the 7th round this year.  

[champ11]

 

Not a fan of this dude but i just got this notification from bleacher report. meh 

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, champ11 said:

 

Not a fan of this dude but i just got this notification from bleacher report. meh 

Does @Counselor have a Twitter account? Maybe I can ID it by sifting through the expected replies.  

[thebestever6]

All the picks for players moves tell me a trade down is likely if available.  I think Buffalo is best case scenario. I know people say we don't have enough roster spots I'm not sure what roster is being saw.  Hear me out if Denver traded for Buffalos 2 firsts and two seconds we'd have options to trade a second for first next year. Or, we could address.

Qb, Wr, te, corner, rb, tackle, guard with those 5 picks. Theres enough holes with young talent available imo.

[germ-x]

25 minutes ago, champ11 said:

 

Not a fan of this dude but i just got this notification from bleacher report. meh 

I hope that guy is credible. 

[paul-mac]

55 minutes ago, germ-x said:

I hope that guy is credible. 

 

Didn't he keep going home from the senior bowl and coming back because his mom was ill or something? Maybe there's more to that story that we don't know about, but to be fair our interest in Mayfield was red hot earlier in the offseason and seems to have cooled, so it wouldn't shock me. I'm clinging to the tiniest possibility that Josh Rosen could be there at 5. Only was that happens if there are no trades in the top 4 (Browns take Darnold, Jets take Allen, Barkley/Chubb go the Browns and Giants in some order). It seems very clear that one of Rosen, Chubb or Barkley will be available 5 (Because Darnold and Allen look like top 5 locks) so I think we definitely get a premium player, but then it's almost hard to rank QBs alongside other players. I almost think you need to have two separate draft boards, one with QBs and one with everyone else, then you decide if you're going to target the franchise guy or not. If we aren't all in on a QB then it simply must be Barkley or Chubb at 5. They're the only two blue chip players in this draft. Nelson will be a pro-bowl Guard, but in terms of positional value I just don't think being *really good* at Guard makes that much of a difference to the team as a whole. I kinda view the offensive line as a unit that you just need adequate protection from, I don't think there's a huge correlation between having a dominant OL and winning games, so I'm happy with a lineup of Bolles-Leary-Paradis-McGovern-Veldheer, would like to bring in a couple young guys to develop.

 

RB on the other hand I think there IS positional value in having an elite RB. Now I'd say outside of the top 6-7 RBs in the league, their success becomes a function of the OL and then there's no point spending resources on them, but if you have a chance to land a transcendent talent at RB, you should take it because they overcome bad OL play and are a great help to the QB.

[germ-x]

5 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

All the picks for players moves tell me a trade down is likely if available.  I think Buffalo is best case scenario. I know people say we don't have enough roster spots I'm not sure what roster is being saw.  Hear me out if Denver traded for Buffalos 2 firsts and two seconds we'd have options to trade a second for first next year. Or, we could address.

Qb, Wr, te, corner, rb, tackle, guard with those 5 picks. Theres enough holes with young talent available imo.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a trade back happens, but I think Denver hads positioned themselves to take BPA.  Personally, I think the current target is Barkley and if he’s not there Nelson.

While I don’t love all the moves Elway has made, he’s filled the majority of holes.  Keenum (while average, better than what we had) Veldheer (upgrade at RT), Brock (3rd CB), re-signing Davis (there was nothing at ILB) adding Cravens (fills the cover LB role at worst).

Obviously this team needs depth and could use upgrades at certain positions.  But with the current roster set up I think they keep 1.5 and target an elite player, which will be there.  They still also have a good number of picks to build behind the current starters.

A friend of mine is all about the trade back.  I personally am not.  Denver won’t be in position to get a truly elite player that often.  It needs to be capitalized on.

[germ-x]

Like I told my friend.  Trading back always sounds great because you always assume when you do you’re going to hit on the compensation.  History says most times you don’t.  If Denver doesn’t go QB, they’ll have one of Barkley, Chubb, or Nelson on the board.  All elite caliber players at their positions.  Even a move back to #12, #22 and a future 1st from Buffalo could be a huge blunder.

Sounds great, but all of a sudden you’re out of elite prospect territory.

[AKRNA]

6 hours ago, paul-mac said:

 

Didn't he keep going home from the senior bowl and coming back because his mom was ill or something? Maybe there's more to that story that we don't know about, but to be fair our interest in Mayfield was red hot earlier in the offseason and seems to have cooled, so it wouldn't shock me. I'm clinging to the tiniest possibility that Josh Rosen could be there at 5. Only was that happens if there are no trades in the top 4 (Browns take Darnold, Jets take Allen, Barkley/Chubb go the Browns and Giants in some order). It seems very clear that one of Rosen, Chubb or Barkley will be available 5 (Because Darnold and Allen look like top 5 locks) so I think we definitely get a premium player, but then it's almost hard to rank QBs alongside other players. I almost think you need to have two separate draft boards, one with QBs and one with everyone else, then you decide if you're going to target the franchise guy or not. If we aren't all in on a QB then it simply must be Barkley or Chubb at 5. They're the only two blue chip players in this draft. Nelson will be a pro-bowl Guard, but in terms of positional value I just don't think being *really good* at Guard makes that much of a difference to the team as a whole. I kinda view the offensive line as a unit that you just need adequate protection from, I don't think there's a huge correlation between having a dominant OL and winning games, so I'm happy with a lineup of Bolles-Leary-Paradis-McGovern-Veldheer, would like to bring in a couple young guys to develop.

 

RB on the other hand I think there IS positional value in having an elite RB. Now I'd say outside of the top 6-7 RBs in the league, their success becomes a function of the OL and then there's no point spending resources on them, but if you have a chance to land a transcendent talent at RB, you should take it because they overcome bad OL play and are a great help to the QB.

So, the bolded is where we'll disagree for a while. Trench guys, both sides of the LOS aren't really noticed unless it's an edge rusher, or penetrating DT. The only time people really notice them is when they get flagged.

It's too bad really, the battle that goes on down there really does decide most games. Especially the interior. If you can control that on either side of the LOS you limit your opposition greatly. If you control it on both sides you'll win a lot of games.

Nelson would provide that at 5. I kinda like @BaldyBronco's scenario of trading back, maneuvering a bit, and picking up Vea and Wynn.

So, why did I say we'd disagree for a while? Well, every decade you watch the game you realize more and more how important those guys are in the trenches. Another decade or two and we'll agree way more than we do right now.

 

[thebestever6]

2 hours ago, germ-x said:

Like I told my friend.  Trading back always sounds great because you always assume when you do you’re going to hit on the compensation.  History says most times you don’t.  If Denver doesn’t go QB, they’ll have one of Barkley, Chubb, or Nelson on the board.  All elite caliber players at their positions.  Even a move back to #12, #22 and a future 1st from Buffalo could be a huge blunder.

Sounds great, but all of a sudden you’re out of elite prospect territory.

How often does an elite prospect pan out at 5? I personally think besides qb you don't need elite talent. Close to it sure good players and great players sure.  You want a model to go by look at the Vikings. I mean how many of their players were taken even top 10?

We can still get great players especially 12. I hear smith from Georgia has blemishes on his physical so he might drop. You just never know.

[Broncofan]

5 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

How often does an elite prospect pan out at 5? I personally think besides qb you don't need elite talent. Close to it sure good players and great players sure.  You want a model to go by look at the Vikings. I mean how many of their players were taken even top 10?

We can still get great players especially 12. I hear smith from Georgia has blemishes on his physical so he might drop. You just never know.

If you don't take a QB or reach for need, the odds go way up - we're lucky enough to be in elite-level territory.    Some years, 1.5 doesn't get you an elite talent - this year, because of the QB depth, we know 1 the 3 elite non-QB talents will be there.

No one would argue if we get an offer that's too good to pass up - but even 1.12 and 1.22 will probably be our best case scenario in terms of 1st round picks - because we'd be trading back for the 4th QB, for which a big drop-off in tiers is already viewed from 3rd to 4th.   And having 1.6 - 1.10 unlikely to go QB, it's not the bonanza situation some had hoped for a trade-back scenario.    Frankly, I still expect BUF to use 1.12 and 1.22 to move up to 1.4 or even 1.2 (the latter which will require much more than that, to get ahead of us).

The whiff rate as you drop down the 1st round is much higher, and the elite-level guy is much harder to find.    It's also why taking BPA is the long-term most successful strategy - QB impact is the only reason it gets broken this high.      An elite difference-maker is just a huge difference.   Getting a Bosa, a Garrett, a Zack Martin, they're franchise cornerstones.  And yes, so is the impact QB, even more so - but we've spent so many years hoping for the ability to get an impact guy.   If we aren't getting a massive return on a tradeback, and it looks more and more like we won't, then standing pat and taking the overall BPA is a very smart move, when it yields an elite player.    If you can move back and still get the elite guy like IND did from 1.3 to 1.6, that's just icing on the cake for them.  Sadly, though, we're not in IND's position - the difference 1 game won/lost makes. 

[anewdawn]

18 hours ago, jsthomp2007 said:

You all keep talking about drafting a QB....I don't think it will happen...maybe in the 7th again.  But, I think Elway and Co. are going to let Chad and Pax fight it out as the long-term solution for the team.  And, I guess giving Pax more time to develop makes sense...Kelly just has the pedigree and competitiveness that I don't see from Lynch...I think in two years, if Keenum isn't lighting the world on fire, Chad is your QOTF.   I say this without masturbating over the thought of Chad Kelly...but think the has just as much upside and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Mayfield.  

 

The bolded is like the best line in a post I have seen in a while.  lmfao