Jump to content

Official Broncos Forum Draft Thread


AnAngryAmerican

Recommended Posts

Not upset about anything in his draft so far. I like that Elway is sticking to BPA. But man, there were some nice looking guards in this class that we missed out on. If we had landed Hernandez on top of Chubb somehow, I wouldn't have even cared who we picked after that lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like Mel Kiper, at least his personality for draft day.  But that guy is such a fraud.  His draft board changes based off what he’s “hearing” constantly and isn’t a representation of his actual analysis.

Like tonight look at his top available for day #3 then when the draft kicks off it’ll be completely changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

No, but I think it underlines the weakness of the CB class at this stage.    Oliver at 2.40 is a huge impact player, and Gallup, while behind Sutton clearly, is only a hair behind IMO.   And I actually am convinced Freeman lasts to 3.99 - but even if he doesn't, John Kelly does.  

To be clear, I've said it from the moment 2.40 happened, so not going hindsight.  It's not a horrible reach, but going WR first set up a sequence which I think goes a lot higher impact-wise.   But, then again, it's not like this is a typical WTF Day 2 Elway's used to giving  us, LOL.   So it's clear progress.

You’re literally judging this draft through hindsight already tho O.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zukhyubern said:

You’re literally judging this draft through hindsight already tho O.o

If I said that only now, yes, totally fair point.  But I made that call when 2.40 happened and many, many pages before 2.40 that we shouldn't go WR, but go TE/CB first. And get WR/RB later in Rd3.  That's the beauty of the draft page.   It's a risk, no way of knowing then if it would work out - but the prediction was made before 2.40 - so it's not hindsight - but at that time we didn't know the result.  We know now - that's where hindsight applies.   That's the fun part of drafting - predicting the board.   And the key next part - willing to get different guys at that position when (not if) the board doesn't go as expected.  Which it won't.      

That's where Elway often has failed to do b4, adjusting to how the Big Board is falling.  Which then has translated into taking guys way too early because he has to have "his guy".  This year, he didn't have to get Ronald Jones, so he went Freeman.  I applaud that.  For me, I'd have to go with RB John Kelly 3.99 to do what I said we should do (CB/TE 2.40, Gallup as BPA WR 3.71, and then Kelly 3.99 - since no RB went after Freeman, I could argue he might have still been there, but there is literally no way of knowing for sure - but as I also said then, if Freeman wasn't there at 3.99, I'd go Kelly next - and he was).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

I've said you go BPA when there's a gap in talent.  Once the gaps are smaller that there's little difference, then it's OK to go by need and positional depth as a tiebreaker.    I've held that by the time you are somewhere in Rd3+, the gaps are usually small enough to justify need-based drafting.  Some years, it's after 60 guys.  Some years, it's 75+.   

But once you are out of elite difference makes, maximizing overall value where you can matters, and that's where positional depth matters - who can you get later if you pass now.   For Round 2, drafting the 25th guy at WR over the 30th guy at CB  at 2.40 makes sense in a vacuum, but not if with the next pick in Rd 3.70, this then gives you WR's who are in the 50's on your list (with the #30 guy),  where going to CB (or T, etc.) is now in the 70's on your board with the #25 WR.  

As for the mocks, it's an exercise in projecting how the draft will fall - but it's not a straight 1-150 rank of who the best player is.     Even if you think a guy is the 60th on your board, if the 48th, 52nd and 54th guy in that position is still on the board undrafted, you can take the risk to wait until 3.99 mock-wise.   That's why I put Gallup at 3.99 in my mock, for example - it's where I think the draft will fall - it's not where I have them on my list.  A mock is not a straight 1-150 rank, because teams don't draft that way.     It's also unpredictable - and thus the reason why you adjust the draft idea as you go down the list. 

It goes with the territory that projected drafts won't go the way people predict - but that's the part that Elway's team really struggle at.   Why they've reached for guys way ahead of where the big boards have them.

I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here and it’s nothing against you or anyone else, just my whole feeling on the concept of selecting BPA and I’ve been saying this for a few years.

The concept of drafting pure BPA always sounds great.  Fans always talk about it and teams always spew it pre and post draft.  The fact is, no one, even the vast majority of fans would do it come draft day.

NFL teams select BPA at a position of need.  Literally every single one of them does this. There may be an instance here and there where it doesn’t happen, but 95% of the time they’re selecting BPA at a position of need.

I completely get this, but as you mentioned, well when the board and differences between players gets tighter then you have to adjust.  Basically that’s saying take the BPA at a position of need depending on how the board is falling.  

In the case of Michael Gallup, if one thought he’d be available at #99 or #106 it should be because that’s where he fell on the board.  I am fully on board with draft manipulation, but it’s incredibly contradictory to say, “well I want this guy at #99, but if WRs start to go I’ll take him at #71.”  If Michael Gallup is really that good and is available at #71 you’d just take him regardless and not play the game, that’d be taking pure BPA.

Further, the fact is, especially as fans, we don’t know how the board is going to fall.  In the case of the Broncos it actually looks terrific based on what we know now.  Chubb was an unreal pick, they got the most projectable outside WR and red zone threat, a bell cow RB, a bigger and projectable CB, and a chance at Crosby and Jewell at #106 & #113 and MANY in this forum would’ve been fine with Crosby at #40 and Jewell at #71 (which looking at now that they’re  still available would’ve been laughable picks in those spots).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, germ-x said:

I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here and it’s nothing against you or anyone else, just my whole feeling on the concept of selecting BPA and I’ve been saying this for a few years.

The concept of drafting pure BPA always sounds great.  Fans always talk about it and teams always spew it pre and post draft.  The fact is, no one, even the vast majority of fans would do it come draft day.

NFL teams select BPA at a position of need.  Literally every single one of them does this. There may be an instance here and there where it doesn’t happen, but 95% of the time they’re selecting BPA at a position of need.

I completely get this, but as you mentioned, well when the board and differences between players gets tighter then you have to adjust.  Basically that’s saying take the BPA at a position of need depending on how the board is falling.  

In the case of Michael Gallup, if one thought he’d be available at #99 or #106 it should be because that’s where he fell on the board.  I am fully on board with draft manipulation, but it’s incredibly contradictory to say, “well I want this guy at #99, but if WRs start to go I’ll take him at #71.”  If Michael Gallup is really that good and is available at #71 you’d just take him regardless and not play the game, that’d be taking pure BPA.

Further, the fact is, especially as fans, we don’t know how the board is going to fall.  In the case of the Broncos it actually looks terrific based on what we know now.  Chubb was an unreal pick, they got the most projectable outside WR and red zone threat, a bell cow RB, a bigger and projectable CB, and a chance at Crosby and Jewell at #106 & #113 and MANY in this forum would’ve been fine with Crosby at #40 and Jewell at #71 (which looking at now that they’re  still available would’ve been laughable picks in those spots).  

No worries, we've had this convo before, rant away lol - and I actually agree with what you've said on this.  I just have a different take on the first bolded part - knowing how the board will play out allows good teams to increase their gain from overall BPA and how the draft order shakes out.    With things like positional depth factored in, and how drafts are likely to go.   If you go solely by BPA, and don't factor in how the Big Board is likely to go, you don't maximize the profit of good drafting.   

For example - if the top 20 players have 12 WR's in it, there is no way the 12th WR should be ranked at #20 overall.   We know a draft won't go that way.   That's where mocks differ from pure BPA lists.   We're guessing where we think that WR will rank.    The problem is, we're never going to get it right - but we're trying to predict where we can maximize the return.   And that's where the target draft range changes.    If we are off by a round, but we still have a 20-pick profit instead of a 50-pick profit, and the combo it creates maximizes your overall BPA rank-to-pick profit,  then it's fine.   

I get you are saying pure BPA means we should stick to the list - but drafting involves both using BPA vs. need, and then accounting for the how the Big Board is falling.  That last part is a totally independent exercise - because we're trying to predict how 31 other teams will draft (and a GM we don't even know what he's thinking lol).     When it comes to the last part, you can absolutely see someone change their mind on a draft range - if the range still represents a profit of draft spot vs. BPA spot.     

The problem with BPA vs. need is that people tend to speak in absolutes, and that's a fair criticism.  Your point that need is never completely excluded (or in Elway's case, how he sees certain values of positions), is very fair.    But there has to be distinction - we clearly can tell when a team is going almost solely off need, or when need is ignored to a-near 100 percent level.   There's a ton of gray.   And keep in mind BPA only really applies when there's a gap in actual talent.   BPA is almost meaningless once we are  at this stage of the draft.  Other than a Maurice Hurst or Antonio Callaway, there is no OMG-why-is-he-still-there talent difference now.   

As for the second bolded part - that's why it's fun to have people put their opinions before picks are made.   And to be clear, it's not like we are experts who are better than Elway & co (although, some regimes, it's been iffy lol).  The GM game should remove all doubt in that regard (and even then, there it's using hindsight - the Draft pages which are live, on the other hand, ppl are putting on record in real time, so that's legit).    We are all just hardcore fans - but we don't have the info & resources Elway & co.  do.   We aren't expecting to be perfect.   But yeah, if we only focus on the negative - it's important to recognize hindsight is 20-20.  But it's also why it's fun to put opinions on paper before the draft happens - then at least, no one is talking with just hindsight.    We all look really smart when it's after the fact. 

Good talk btw - we've had this before, but the points get refined and expanded in scope each time.  If you recall, I actually see  your point.  I'd just point out drafting isn't solely a BPA vs. need equation - it's about adjusting to the Big Board, and also the willingness to adapt to how the Big Board is falling (and on that count, Elway's been brutal in the past - but this year, his picks actually show real progress).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

We've had this convo before - and I actually agree with what you've said on this.  I just have a different take on the bolded part - knowing how the board will play out allows good teams to increase their gain from overall BPA and how the draft .    With things like positional depth factored in, and how drafts are likely to go.  

For example - if the top 20 players have 12 WR's in it, there is no way the 12th WR should be ranked at #20 overall.   We know a draft won't go that way.   That's where mocks differ from pure BPA lists.   We're guessing where we think that WR will rank.    The problem is, we're never going to get it right - but we're trying to predict where we can maximize the return.   And that's where the target draft range changes.   

I get you are saying pure BPA means we should stick to the list - but drafting involves both using BPA vs. need, and then accounting for the how the Big Board is falling.  That last part is a totally independent exercise - because we're trying to predict how 31 other teams will draft (and a GM we don't even know what he's thinking lol).     When it comes to the last part, you can absolutely see someone change their mind on a draft range - if the range still represents a profit of draft spot vs. BPA spot.     

The problem with BPA vs. need is that people tend to speak in absolutes, and that's a fair criticism.  Your point that need is never completely excluded (or in Elway's case, how he sees certain values of positions), is very fair.    But there has to be distinction - we clearly can tell when a team is going almost solely off need, or when need is ignored to a-near 100 percent level.   There's a ton of gray.   And keep in mind BPA only really applies when there's a gap in actual talent.   BPA is almost meaningless once we are  at this stage of the draft.  Other than a Maurice Hurst or Antonio Callaway, there is no OMG-why-is-he-still-there talent difference now.   

Good talk btw - we've had this before.  If you recall, I actually see  your point.  I'd just point out drafting isn't solely a BPA vs. need - it's about adjusting to the Big Board, and also the willingness to adapt to how the Big Board is falling (and on that count, Elway's been brutal - but this year, his picks actually show real progress).  

Agreed.  Especially on Elways progress.  Again, haven’t been able to watch as many players as usual, but based on all the draftnik boards I’ve seen Denver hasn’t made a reach yet.  Chubb was a top 5 pick by all, Sutton a 1st-2nd, Freeman a 2nd-3rd, and Yiadom a 3rd-4th.

Further, all but Yiadom (whose very projectable for today’s NFL) have the physical measurables to succeed in the NFL to go along with elite college production.  Chubb, Sutton, and Freeman aren’t physical talents that are all projection, which has been a staple of Elways of late.

I am actually a bit surprised you aren’t as high on Freeman.  I know I’ve seen you post about early freshman/sophomore success+talent=NFL success, Freeman has everything you’d look for in that category and is 230 with explosion and 4.5 speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to wonder how much tread Freeman has left. Over 1000 carries in college.

Anybody ever watch him? I guess I'm curious, does he elude contact well or does he take his hits? He doesn't sound like the type to run out of bounds to avoid contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Agreed.  Especially on Elways progress.  Again, haven’t been able to watch as many players as usual, but based on all the draftnik boards I’ve seen Denver hasn’t made a reach yet.  Chubb was a top 5 pick by all, Sutton a 1st-2nd, Freeman a 2nd-3rd, and Yiadom a 3rd-4th.

Further, all but Yiadom (whose very projectable for today’s NFL) have the physical measurables to succeed in the NFL to go along with elite college production.  Chubb, Sutton, and Freeman aren’t physical talents that are all projection, which has been a staple of Elways of late.

I am actually a bit surprised you aren’t as high on Freeman.  I know I’ve seen you post about early freshman/sophomore success+talent=NFL success, Freeman has everything you’d look for in that category and is 230 with explosion and 4.5 speed.

I'm actually fine with Freeman's ability - he was literally my cutoff for who we should get (I had Kelly ahead).  But Oregon's system has highways for lanes, so I have no idea how his vision translates to the NFL - that kinda worries me.  His workload absolutely terrifies me (although we should use him up for 4 years, say goodbye, rinse & repeat  - it's cold, but RB's are disposable assets you keep only for their rookie year - unless you found an elite top 5 type guy - then you keep them a 5th year for the affordable RB franchise tag...and yes, say goodbye).     Pac-10 success as a RB isn't the same as Big-10 or SEC/ACC.  And I've really changed my bias to go more for do-it-all RB's more & more in today's NFL.    Not just because RB's who pass-catch are used more (they are) - but they change the way D's approach O's.   

Remember that ATL-DEN game in 2016 when the RB's just killed us out of the backfield Week 3 or 4?    Our near-elite D (no Malik and Trevathan so no longer complete) had no answer (Lynch starting for sure didn't help either, lol).    That's when I started to see how much the pass-catching RB who can also run well really destroys D's.    Then I looked at NO last year a lot, being a Kamara dynasty owner.    And it was stark when NO was using AP the first 5-6 weeks - when AP was in, D's could tell it was run, or AP was a decoy.   Once AP left, and it was only Ingram or Kamara, both of whom can catch the ball and be real threats in the pass game - D's again had a much harder time stopping them.   

Now, it doesn't matter if your RB can't make the D respect the run - so far, Booker's been a huge disappointment there (he's a pass game weapon and 2-minute guy, but not even close to good in-between the tackles).    With our O, when Freeman is in, D's will lean to run D.   When Booker is in, it will be pass D.   I'd love for us to be more unpredictable, and having a 3-down do-it-all weapon makes that happen.    That's why I put Jones in the lowest of all the RB's in the non-Barkley first tier, and then I put Freeman lowest in the next tier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

You have to wonder how much tread Freeman has left. Over 1000 carries in college.

Anybody ever watch him? I guess I'm curious, does he allude contact well or does he take his hits? He doesn't sound like the type to run out of bounds to avoid contact.

He is a punisher.  That's his strength and his weakness.   He will get the tough yards.   He will also break down a lot sooner because of it. I don't mind in a vacuum, we'll love that style when he's on the field, but this is not a guy you sign to a 2nd contract.   

The other Q I worry about - his vision isn't good or bad, it's literally unknown.  Helfrich's O, like his predecessor Chip Kelly's, creates huge running lanes.  It's a general issue with the Pac-10 teams, but in ORE it's a big Q for their RB's.   Can't be sure they have NFL-level vision and decisiveness.   If a RB succeeds in the Big 10 or SEC/ACC, you have a much better level of confidence it will translate, especially if it's not a 'Bama/OSU player (since those teams are so unfairly loaded talent-wise).

Still, to be clear, for a 2-down run workhorse, the best guy left by far.  I preferred Kelly, but Kelly's a different type of RB, not the 2-down punisher, so I get why Elway went with Freeman, he'll pair him with Booker to be run/pass guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Day 3 starting, figured we might as well do the remaining Big Board for difference-makers, and create tiers for positions - because, now, other than a handful of guys, I don't know that there's that much separation - and then it's more about who's left in a critical tier (before another drop in talent occurs at that position).   

So my take....with a tidbit on how DEN might approach this with 4.106, 4.113, 5.149 and 5.160 left.

OVERALL - DIFFERENCE-MAKERS LEFT

1.  DT Maurice Hurst - medically speaking, we don't have all the info.  But if what's said is true, and he's had an arrhythmia and been cleared - he should not be falling this far.   If he's cleared, he's in a normal rhythm.   The option to treat would normally be an ablation, which can fix the problem if it keeps re-occurring - and if it's not he doesn't need anything.   If he's in a normal rhythm, he doesn't need blood thinners (which yes, are a career-killer, obviously).    He should go soon.   Unless there's another issue, this is mind-boggling, borderline top-25 to top-30 talent IMO.  Even though we have no need for him, wait long enough, and hell, we should take him, watch him flourish, and profit later when we either save $, or get a great trade return over the Day 3 investment.

2. WR Antonio Callaway - we all know why he hasn't gone yet.   Round 5+ is still my updated guess. 

3.  T Tyrell Crosby - like Hurst, surprised he's lasted this long.  I know he's likely limited to RT, but still.   Few guys with his success, and his power-friendly profile.   I hope DEN is looking at him at 4.106 or 4.113.

4.  T Desmond Harrison - like Callaway, it's about drugs.   Unlike Callaway, Harrison has stayed out of trouble after his TEX issues.   For that reason alone, I'm most hopeful DEN looks at him as the 1st T target.    One of the few guys who can be a true LT (needs time of course at this stage).

5.  DE Josh Sweat - literally no one else with his upside left at DE.  His knee must be a huge flag to fall this far.  Can't see it falling past Rd 4, but who knows what the medicals are showing.

6.  NT Tim Settle - I really am surprised that LAC didn't target him, I got why KC went with Nnadi over him, but I really thought Settle would be the next run-stuffing DT to go.   I expect he won't last long to some other team using a 3-4 that's looking for cheap run D upgrades.  If he is somehow still around Rd5, we should think about getting our 2019 NT, as Peko is done with us, and at his age/mileage, it's been a pleasant surprise - but no more years, please.

OK, after that, it's less about talent differences, and more about who's left in the remaining tiers before positions drop off again.  Here goes:

 

POSITIONAL TIERS LEFT

QB - Kyle Lauletta & Mike White - should go soon.  Obviously a lot can happen, but right now I prefer both to likely whoever is 4th/5th overall QB next year.   Get them a year early, and sit out the 2019 class if it's not one of the guys who rises (realizing it's going to cost more for even higher risk than this year IMO).   As DEN passed on QB, but Keenum is only signed for 2 years, and Chad Kelly is no lock to develop (and don't get me started on Paxton Lynch) could see early interest here.  

RB -   John Kelly & Mark Walton - probably the last RB's I'd feel comfortable penciling as a possible starter (Chase Edmonds! Forgot him).   Kelly is NOT Kamara V2, but I do like his overall game - he's my choice for 3.99 in the alternate GM game.   Both are modern-era value RB's.   Ballage's tape is just so awful, hard to accept given his tools, so can't put him here.   DEN just went Freeman, don't expect any action here.

WR - ESB/Simmie Cobb/Auden Tate - all have flaws, all have potential.  ESB probably has the most, but concerns on the ability to separate and beat NFL-level talent exist with all of them.   Cannot put Lazard in, unlike Callaway, his talent isn't that special, and his character issues are almost as bad.  Pass.   Doubt DEN goes again here (unless it's a Rd5 gamble on Callaway). 

TE - Jaylen Samuels/gap/Durham Smythe - ugh.  Unlike last year, the dropoff comes quickly here.    Could see a DEN Rd5 pick here.  But unlike last year's legendary class, there is no Jake Butt v2 sitting here for us.   

T - already covered the top guys.  OSU Jamarco Jones deserves mention, although I prefer Harrison & Crosby far more than Jones.  Should be a DEN Rd4 priority.

ILB - Shaquem Griffin / Josey Jewell - the great story with Griffin, who can fly and cover guys well, to the classic instincts-but-average-tools who plays up because of his supreme game IQ.   The other Rd4 priority for DEN (Elway's on record to address ILB in draft).

Too tired to do the rest, but that's a good start.    I know I'm missing guys, so have at it lol.

 

Looking at the above, clear targets for DEN are T with Crosby/Harrison early in 4.106.   I expect Elway will address ILB as he's stated, so Griffin/Jewell could go next at 4.113.   I do think if no one has taken him, Callaway's talent becomes arguable for Rd5 - I bet someone else thinks likewise, though, which in a lot of ways, would be a relief.   

But, if Elway is thinking QB, then I think Lauletta at 4.106 or 4.113 has to be done - and then I suspect Elway has to choose what need he fills at Rd4 after Lauletta goes.   So if Elway does want a QB, here's where I'd trade both 5.149 and 5.160 and move up as much as possible (likely 4.120+ range), and get all 3 of Lauletta, ILB & developmental T - and call it a day.  If we aren't married to QB, then no need to move up yet, and we stick with developmental T and ILB for 4.106/4.113, and then we still have 5.149 & 5.160.   If that's the case, I expect TE, and a insane-tool, low-football skill player to be selected, because Elway's a sucker for those guys (and in Rd 5+ nothing wrong with that, it's all a crapshoot anyways).

Early morning, so turning in, should be fun to finish.   Have to say while I'm on record that I would have done it differently, this isn't a bad result by any means.   Which is a HUGE change from normal Day 2's for Elway lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

You have to wonder how much tread Freeman has left. Over 1000 carries in college.

Anybody ever watch him? I guess I'm curious, does he elude contact well or does he take his hits? He doesn't sound like the type to run out of bounds to avoid contact.

His running style reminds me a lot of Peyton Hillis, only he's a few pounds lighter. Which will be awesome for a few years till he can't stay healthy. But I bet we can get some pretty good use out of him for the next 3-4 seasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

His running style reminds me a lot of Peyton Hillis, only he's a few pounds lighter. Which will be awesome for a few years till he can't stay healthy. But I bet we can get some pretty good use out of him for the next 3-4 seasons

That's as much as you can expect. 3-4 years of good production would justify his draft spot. I'd be happy with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

Sutton ran a 6.57 3 cone drill which is very good. I think hes a swill army knife.

That was the surprising Combine result with him because he doesn’t show that level of ability to separate on film.   Mostly all related to his catch radius, high pointing and box out abilities.  

Creating separation and route running are his Q’s right now.  Jeffery is really the best comp but Jeffery is faster and more sudden and an even better box-out guy than Sutton.    But that’s the profile that fits best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...