Extension Candidates

[thebestever6]

5 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I have to disagree. We can't go into the draft with no one at that position.

Developing a guy is ideal but who exactly is that guy? If he were on the roster this move might not have been made.

The more the merry lbs is the one position you need depth.

[Broncofan]

17 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I have to disagree. We can't go into the draft with no one at that position.

Developing a guy is ideal but who exactly is that guy? If he were on the roster this move might not have been made.

ILB and RB are the 2 positions rookies can help early.  This ILB class is deeeep.   There are 3 top 25 talents (Smith Edmunds and LVE) and 4-5 other guys (Evans, Jefferson, Leonard, Jewell) who can help a team right away barring injury.   And the 2nd tier should all be there in Day 2 and a couple could get to Day 3.  ILB draft devaluation is something Elway should be taking advantage of.  Forget Reuben Foster -  last year should have been a clear mandate to get a future LB for 2018 with Davis & Nelson hitting FA.  He certainly did with Marshall and Trevathan yet stopped since then.  Part of his switch to need / insane-ceiling-but-zero football skills which has crippled our draft results.   

And if we aren’t ready to wait - FA Gerald Hodges.  Plays run well but actually can pass cover.  

The problem with Davis is there is no chance of improving.   Which we needed desperately.   To spend 5M on the status quo is lunacy.  

[germ-x]

27 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Davis PFF numbers are misleading because it assumes the opposition is equal and doesn’t incorporate game script.   He’s a complete zero in pass coverage.  He also has shown zero improvement the last 2 years there and for LB it’s not as difficult a position to learn.  That means he has no chance to be better.  And on our D that’s the weakness teams know to exploit... as they did time and again last year.  He’s a really good run thumper and so he would be a good fit for a team that can cover up his weaknesses.  We aren’t that team.  That’s the issue.  

Marshall hasn’t been good.  Injury related it is but that was the risk.  So it’s not an absolution on him.  But we were stuck with Marshall.  We weren’t stuck with Davis.   That’s a huge distinction.  

It’s an awful decision by Elway.  Not just because the $ is wasted but we will waste snaps on him. When we need to develop a guy who has the hope that he can give us more.   We have zero shot to contend with Davis.  We have a better shot if we find a guy who can bring better skills than Davis long term.  

 

Marshall was worse in coverage than Davis.  Hell when both were on the field Denver was rolling Davis into the coverage roll over Marshall.  Maybe it was the injuries, but even the tape showed Marshall was the inferior player last season and Denver’s paying Davis half what they are Marshall.

I don’t like the Davis deal, don’t get me wrong.  It was a desperation move because the team has done nothing to build at ILB.  But there was no way Denver could roll into next year with Marshall as the only capable ILB.  It’d make ILB as big a need as RT. 

[Broncofan]

5 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Marshall was worse in coverage than Davis.  Hell when both were on the field Denver was rolling Davis into the coverage roll over Marshall.  Maybe it was the injuries, but even the tape showed Marshall was the inferior player last season and Denver’s paying Davis half what they are Marshall.

I don’t like the Davis deal, don’t get me wrong.  It was a desperation move because the team has done nothing to build at ILB.  But there was no way Denver could roll into next year with Marshall as the only capable ILB.  It’d make ILB as big a need as RT. 

Unlike RT, though, you can find ILB later.   That's a huge diff.   Duke Riley & Alex Anzalone Rd3,  Reeves-Maybin Rd4.  And that doesn't count developmental guys like Anthony Walker Rd6 who wouldn't have helped last year..but have hope they could be something this year.   Which is the way it should be.   We just haven't even tried - no LB's acquired in FA, or in the draft last year.    I'd argue that's as big a mistake as any last year - and last year wasn't pretty.

[AKRNA]

18 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

ILB and RB are the 2 positions rookies can help early.  This ILB class is deeeep.   There are 3 top 25 talents (Smith Edmunds and LVE) and 4-5 other guys (Evans, Jefferson, Leonard, Jewell) who can help a team right away barring injury.   And the 2nd tier should all be there in Day 2 and a couple could get to Day 3.  ILB draft devaluation is something Elway should be taking advantage of.  Forget Reuben Foster -  last year should have been a clear mandate to get a future LB for 2018 with Davis & Nelson hitting FA.  He certainly did with Marshall and Trevathan yet stopped since then.  Part of his switch to need / insane-ceiling-but-zero football skills which has crippled our draft results.   

And if we aren’t ready to wait - FA Gerald Hodges.  Plays run well but actually can pass cover.  

The problem with Davis is there is no chance of improving.   Which we needed desperately.   To spend 5M on the status quo is lunacy.  

We'll just have to disagree. I don't think it's sound management to enter the draft with such a huge hole at ILB. Then we're really forced into that pick in the draft.

 

[Broncofan]

5 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

We'll just have to disagree. I don't think it's sound management to enter the draft with such a huge hole at ILB. Then we're really forced into that pick in the draft.

 

Again, though - you don't have to be forced into any pick until the field is so uncertain, it's not a bad play at all.  Once you are into the 3.99+ range, it's justifiable.  It's not justifiable earlier.   Later there is such little difference.     My point is you can get overall BPA with ILB by Rd3 and still address need.   Is it ideal?  No, but that's also why it was a no-brainer to have done it last year.  But what's done is done.   But unlike most positions, finding a starter in RB/ILB on Rd3 is actually one of the few positions where it's done each and every year, and not just 1 exception.  

Again, it doesn't change the other point - which is that no matter what, spending 5M on Davis is bad management.   Spend it on Gerald Hodges, who probably costs less.  Spend less on a guy who has hope he can bring a more complete game.   If there is none, don't settle for status quo.  Status quo only gets you to 5-11 type talent playing on our team for another year. 

[The Helicopter]

 Isaiah McKenzie - extension for sure, a baller

[germ-x]

2 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Unlike RT, though, you can find ILB later.   That's a huge diff.   We just haven't even tried - no LB's acquired in FA, or in the draft last year.    I'd argue that's as big a mistake as any last year - and last year wasn't pretty.

Oh I don’t disagree.  But Marshall’s strength is between the tackles as more of a 2 down LB.  Marshall isn’t nearly as athletic as he’s made out to be.  He isn’t a cover LB and neither is Davis, but over the last 2 seasons Davis has been the superior run defender.  

Denver needs a cover LB.  I said this the year Denver lost Trevathan and Jackson, that Trevathan may end up being the biggest loss to that defense.  By no means am I saying Jackson’s ability to rush inside isn’t missed, but this defenses Achilles heel for 2 years is the inability to cover at LB, which Trevathan was masterful at.

Honestly, i don’t know the cap hit in cutting Marshall, but if it’s minimal I’ll take Davis at 5 million a year over Marshall at 9 million.  Davis has been the better player for 2 years.

Doesnt make signing Davis the right move, but the Marshall deal was much worse.  

[AKRNA]

3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Again, though - you don't have to be forced into any pick until the field is so uncertain, it's not a bad play at all.  Once you are into the 3.99+ range, it's justifiable.  It's not justifiable earlier.   Later there is such little difference.   

Like I said, we'll have to disagree. Counting on a 3rd round pick to replace a 4 year pro with 2 years starting is a long shot. Like @germ-x said, I don't really like the deal, I just don't think we had much choice.

 

[thebestever6]

Germ X and Arkna on my side I feel like a non leper now thought I'd get killed for my statement. 

[thebestever6]

Nigel Bradham from Philly  got 40 mill is he worth that? Maybe lb is over valued. Alsp look at the Alec Ogletree trade and comtracr astonishing.

[Broncofan]

Just now, germ-x said:

Oh I don’t disagree.  But Marshall’s strength is between the tackles as more of a 2 down LB.  Marshall isn’t nearly as athletic as he’s made out to be.  He isn’t a cover LB and neither is Davis, but over the last 2 seasons Davis has been the superior run defender.  

Denver needs a cover LB.  I said this the year Denver lost Trevathan and Jackson, that Trevathan may end up being the biggest loss to that defense.  By no means am I saying Jackson’s ability to rush inside isn’t missed, but this defenses Achilles heel for 2 years is the inability to cover at LB, which Trevathan was masterful at.

Honestly, i don’t know the cap hit in cutting Marshall, but if it’s minimal I’ll take Davis at 5 million a year over Marshall at 9 million.  Davis has been the better player for 2 years.

Doesnt make signing Davis the right move, but the Marshall deal was much worse.  

Marshall actually only has a 2018 salary of 5M.   He has a bonus of 2M, and 2 more bonus year left (since the bonus is spread over the entire 4 years).   So we can't cut him - we actually take on more $.  

The problem is we aren't choosing between them - we chose to play both of them.  Awful given the fact we can't cut Marshall this year.   Next year, we should be cutting both guys.  And yes, that means we should be planning to get 2 ILB's - fortunately, as noted, you can get them late, probably 2 even at 3.99 or later.   And not have to reach for need over BPA, those guys likely are top of the overall BPA list when we pick after then.  

[AKRNA]

3 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Oh I don’t disagree.  But Marshall’s strength is between the tackles as more of a 2 down LB.  Marshall isn’t nearly as athletic as he’s made out to be.  He isn’t a cover LB and neither is Davis, but over the last 2 seasons Davis has been the superior run defender.  

Denver needs a cover LB.  I said this the year Denver lost Trevathan and Jackson, that Trevathan may end up being the biggest loss to that defense.  By no means am I saying Jackson’s ability to rush inside isn’t missed, but this defenses Achilles heel for 2 years is the inability to cover at LB, which Trevathan was masterful at.

Honestly, i don’t know the cap hit in cutting Marshall, but if it’s minimal I’ll take Davis at 5 million a year over Marshall at 9 million.  Davis has been the better player for 2 years.

Doesnt make signing Davis the right move, but the Marshall deal was much worse.  

So, what do you think of Edmunds? I've not heard much negative and apparently his coverage skills are good enough he'll occasionally cover a slot receiver.

We all know Elway loves the physical freaks, maybe he'll draft one that's also a good ballplayer.

[thebestever6]

1 minute ago, AKRNA said:

So, what do you think of Edmunds? I've not heard much negative and apparently his coverage skills are good enough he'll occasionally cover a slot receiver.

We all know Elway loves the physical freaks, maybe he'll draft one that's also a good ballplayer.

Id love Sua Cravens for a 5th or 6th I think he can cover. And is cheaper draft capital wise.

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Like I said, we'll have to disagree. Counting on a 3rd round pick to replace a 4 year pro with 2 years starting is a long shot. Like @germ-x said, I don't really like the deal, I just don't think we had much choice.

 

You're asking the wrong Q - Davis gives zero hope we will be better there when we can contend.   Another guy will give us more hope when we can contend - and the risk of poorer play is acceptable, and the chance we can replace Davis even this year is a lot higher than zero - which is what Davis offers in improving our ILB weaknessess.  Your line of thinking is in line with trying to contend for 2018.   We realistically cannot.   That and the devaluation of ILB makes this a very different situation than other positions.   

It's much like RB - we're about to cut Anderson in all likelihood, and let Booker/D-Henderson play with a rookie for our spots, even knowing Booker is for sure only a 3rd down back, and D-Henderson didn't even see the field but spot duty for 2 games, and one sadly against the KC 2nd string D.   Those are the 2 positions where it's actually very defendable to pursue.