2017 Team Rookie Grades

[OrangeCrush93]

What are your grades on the draft class from this year? I’ll post mine when I have my laptop instead of my phone.

[AnAngryAmerican]

Bolles: C- : was a meathead coming out of college and played liked a meathead in the NFL. He has a cute baby, that moves him from D+ to C-.

Isiah McKenzie: F : he was a punchline in a Belichick press conference. Enough said. 

All the other rookies didn’t play.

[BullsandBroncos]

13 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Bolles: C- : was a meathead coming out of college and played liked a meathead in the NFL. He has a cute baby, that moves him from D+ to C-.

Isiah McKenzie: F : he was a punchline in a Belichick press conference. Enough said. 

All the other rookies didn’t play.

Pretty Much This. Bolles was average to pedestrian in the running game at best, and after games when he faced pedestrian pass rushers, they still steam rolled him. Bulk him up and move him to RT. Find a new LT. McKensie was a joke. Didn't see much of an athletic ability. If Butt and Hendersons aren't any good either this is the worst draft since 2007.

[iLikeDefense]

14 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Bolles: C- : was a meathead coming out of college and played liked a meathead in the NFL. He has a cute baby, that moves him from D+ to C-.

Isiah McKenzie: F : he was a punchline in a Belichick press conference. Enough said. 

All the other rookies didn’t play.

Can't really argue with any of this. If there is one player I feel that should be cut right now it would be McKenzie. Waste of a pick and roster spot.

[thebestever6]

It's almost like we have 2 rookie classes in 2018. I'm excited to see a whole new crop of rookies along with Walker bulked up, Henderson, Butt, Henderson, Kelly, Jamaal Carter.

 

Was Shelby harris a rookie?

[Broncofan]

30 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

It's almost like we have 2 rookie classes in 2018. I'm excited to see a whole new crop of rookies along with Walker bulked up, Henderson, Butt, Henderson, Kelly, Jamaal Carter.

 

Was Shelby harris a rookie?

Harris was a 3-year vet claimed off waivers - he's a UFA in 2018.  

[champ11]

I'll give Bolles a C. I'm still high on him being a solid starter, but his penalties were killer. 

Also McKenzie might be the most wrong I have ever been about a player. Wowza 

[AnAngryAmerican]

On the radio the other day I heard someone, I can't remember who, make a good point - why do NFL teams think they can change players? Bolles was a penalty machine in college and he was a penalty machine this year in the NFL. Is anyone really surprised?

[Broncofan]

As for the rookie class, realizing you need at least 1 more year before you can finalize the grades:

1.  Garrett Bolles - D - Now, to be clear, on Bolles alone, he gets a C - an A for run blocking (81.8 grade and 14th best T rating according to PFF), and a F in pass pro (51.4 and 59th T rating) - and while PFF ratings aren't perfect, the eye test confirms the grades on both sides.   

But you have to downgrade the pick to a D with the knowledge that ILB Reuben Foster was the 5th overall rookie, even with him missing 4 games, finished as the top 4 ILB overall (and missing games actually hurt his grade), especially when you look at the final data, which includes:

-Foster was only 1 of 2 ILB's with top 10 run and pass grades in both cats.  The other guy?  Some dude named Luke Kuechly.

-Foster actually had the highest run stop grade of any ILB.   On pass coverage, only 28 percent of those targets led to first downs (or TD's) - near-elite #'s.  Anyone think we could have used that?

-Foster did all the above with a High Ankle Sprain, and with ZERO strengthening pre-2017, as he just did rehab off his shoulder surgery.  The ceiling here is just plain scary.

Now, again, ILB is devalued - but unless Bolles is a top 10 LT, an elite ILB is actually much more valuable than a league average LT.    But there's still time.  Having said that, remember the other choice if we didn't go Foster was to go with the younger Ryan Ramczyk (and in fact, trade down to 1.28 and still get Ramczyk, which Elway confirmed we had the option but passed):

-Ramczyk rated as the 9th overall rookie - and actually rated as the 9th overall T in the league, period.

-Ramczyk showed balance, as the 7th T graded on run blocking (actually better than Bolles), and 9th in pass protection, with grades of 84.1 and 80.8, respectively. 

-Before we cite his play being at RT - keep in mind he played 5 games at LT, and showed well, so this isn't an apples to oranges discussion.

(Source - hhttps://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-2017-nfl-rookie-rankings-through-week-16)

So you have to give the Bolles pick a D - and that's only because it's Year 1.   If we move him to RT, then any theoretical advantage over Ramczyk position-wise then also goes away.   And this isn't hindisight, this was exactly the debate as soon as the pick was made.   

 

2. Demarcus Walker - D - really, this is an incomplete on the player itself, because he was asked to play out of position, then lost so much weight, barely got any time inside (and while it was great, remember KC was playing 2nd-stringers on the OL).  But pick-wise we also passed up on DL Dalvin Tomlinson, or RB Kareem Hunt, WR JuJu Smith-Schuster, CB Awuzie, G Dan Feeney and RT Taylor Moton and RT Dion Dawkins in taking Walker.  Passing on the RT also shows the cascade effect of going Bolles if he ends up as a RT, much better value with Foster/Rd 2 RT.     Again demonstrating how not even pursuing LT Andrew Whitworth crushed our offseason impact-wise.

 

3.  C-Henderson & Brendan Langley - D - this is actually kind, because while all draft picks are still incomplete in grading for 2+ seasons, Day 2 picks should at least be making some impact in a rotation by the end of year 1 - and then surging up in Year 2.  Day 3 picks you can give 2 full seasons of development, then Year 3 real impact.    Neither C-Henderson has had any impact, and as we saw, Langley looked beyond raw in his limited time.   And C-Henderson we chose to IR-no return even though his injury had an early October return.

Worse, were the guys who were available even if we just stick to position - WR we had Dede Westbook, Kenny Golladay & Chris Godwin - who've all shown serious flashes in Year 1.   I can actually give Elway a pass on Westbrook given his character concerns (DV is a major red flag these days, I get that) - but those guys were all impact playmakers year 1.   And on the CB side, we passed on guys ranked well ahead like Desmond King (a top 10 slot CB in year 1 alone) and Howard Wilson (ACL truly unfortunate), but guys who had serious upside AND more polish to be ready.   Just a huge SMH on yet more classic Elway reaches that could have gone rounds later.    I didn't even need to look at other positions, either - then it gets even uglier - since we're so talent-poor depth-wise, a lot of other positions, we would have benefited greatly by having actual decent picks here regardless of need (again, the whole "overall BPA rather than need" approach early on in drafts - later on, the talent difference is so small BPA-wise, you can go need/ceiling/mancrush - but Rds 1-3...those are picks with hit rates that should be much higher than the rest, and much, much higher than Elway's abysmal record since the 2011 draft).

 

4.  Day 3 picks - most of the time, as they deserve a 2-year incubation period, it's truly incomplete unless they flash, then they get positive grades.  In Isiaih McKenzie's case, though, he gets an easy F - as his 6 fumbles in just over 30+ touches hurt us way more than if we just had a warm body there.  And unlike most rookies, inability to contribute on ST is a huge red flag when that's one of your drawing cards, it doesn't require the same kind of incubation period as actual position play.  Not to mention the extreme stupidity in not knowing the clock doesn't stop when you are inbounds..in Week 16 (that's a major problem as far as lack of intelligence goes, that should be learned in August).   Everyone else at least has legit hope they can be 2018 contributors. 

It's too early to give final grades, but yet again, outside of McKenzie who gets a F,  Day 3 looks like Elway's best area.   And the practice of reaching way too soon for "his guy" looks pretty bad for Elway in Day 1-2...again.   Which is a huge problem when you are as talent-poor as we are becoming.   Oh well.

 

[iLikeDefense]

@Broncofan that was hella depressing bruh

[Broncofan]

21 minutes ago, iLikeDefense said:

@Broncofan that was hella depressing bruh

Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to look it over either.   It's the most worrisome part about this upcoming draft - we all know that Elway is great once we start Day 3 - but OMG the Day 1-2 record is just scary (and Day 1 really only started the last 2-3 years, whole "1-guy away go need rather than overall BPA" - which you do everything in your power to address in FA so you aren't put in that position...cough *Whitworth* cough).    

The fact we're keeping Matt Russell suggests that Elway still doesn't see the disconnect between his Day 3 success and his Day 2 (and of late, Day 1) misses.   Praying at least at 1.5 we take away the ability to make the wrong call, that's a franchise-turner for 5+ years if we hit/miss.

[jolly red giant]

If Elway f*cks-up this draft then it is likely we'll be picking at 1.5 again next year (with Joseph - and possibly Elway - gone).

[AnAngryAmerican]

I agree with @Broncofan assessment but I will say one thing about the Bolles/Ramczyk comparison is that the latter does protect a HOF QB with elite field vision and a quick release. Bolles on the other hand did not get the help from his QB that Ramczyk got from his. Remember our o-line didn't look too bad when we had Peyton, also a HOF'er with elite field vision and a quick release, even in his final year when his skill set had diminished markedly, he covered up a lot of weaknesses. 

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I agree with @Broncofan assessment but I will say one thing about the Bolles/Ramczyk comparison is that the latter does protect a HOF QB with elite field vision and a quick release. Bolles on the other hand did not get the help from his QB that Ramczyk got from his. Remember our o-line didn't look too bad when we had Peyton, also a HOF'er with elite field vision and a quick release, even in his final year when his skill set had diminished markedly, he covered up a lot of weaknesses. 

That's absolutely fair in terms of pass protection differences in sacks allowed - what's striking though is that Ramczyk's so balanced in his skill set.   A good QB like Brees doesn't likely change Bolles' issues with penalties, and giving up pressures and hits - for the most part it only changes the number of sacks allowed.   Remember that PFF's grade doesn't differentiate as much between a sack and a pressure allowed, the QB can make the difference between those 2 outcomes, but the T gets beat either way - it's only when the QB holds on to the ball way too long that they influence the #'s.     The main other argument to taking Bolles was that he would be more likely to stay at LT.  If we move him to RT then that goes out the window...so yeah, while Bolles can clearly improve - he's got such a long way to go in pass pro, a move to RT is going to be very tempting - which would then kill any argument for taking him in the first place.   Time will tell there 

Keep in mind though the above only matters if you were committed to going T and not with overall BPA - the overall BPA at the time was Foster by a mile - and he's proving it.   The crazy part is that Foster's emergence came with missing almost all of OTA's and only being able to rehab the shoulder, so no power training, etc.   And then he had the HAS which caused him to miss 4 games and likely wasn't 100 percent for 2 of them.  And yet still was the best ILB in the game except for that Luke Kuechly fella.    Passing on Foster could haunt us for 10+ years.  The ONLY solace is that OAK didn't take him at 1.25.   That would have been soul-crushing at least Foster can only make us regret this watching him play in a different conference, and only having to play him once every 4 years instead of 2x a year.

 

[AnAngryAmerican]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

That's absolutely fair in terms of pass protection differences - what's striking though is that Ramczyk's so balanced in his skill set.   The whole argument to Bolles was that he would be more likely to stay at LT.  If we move him to RT then that goes out the window. 

Keep in mind though that's only if you were committed to going T - the overall BPA was Foster by a mile - and he's proving it.   The crazy part is that Foster's emergence came with missing almost all of OTA's and only being able to rehab the shoulder, so no power training, etc.   And then he had the HAS which caused him to miss 4 games and likely wasn't 100 percent for 2 of them.  And yet still was the best ILB in the game except for that Luke Kuechly fella.    Passing on Foster could haunt us for 10+ years.  The ONLY solace is that OAK didn't take him at 1.25.   That would have been soul-crushing at least Foster can only make us regret this watching him play in a different conference, and only having to play him once every 4 years instead of 2x a year.

 

Very true. The Bolles pick was a lot like the Vance hire, both moves pleased virtually no one in the fan base.

The vast majority of the fans wanted Kyle and a smaller chunk wanted Toub, no one wanted Vance.

In the draft, most of us wanted Foster, some wanted one of the TEs, some wanted to trade up for McCaffrey and even if had to go OT with our first round pick, if memory serves, most preferred Ramczyk and Robinson to Bolles. 

Oh well.