Acantha

Broncos | Wilson deal reportedly dead Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:09:44 -0700 Ralph Vacchiano, of the New York Daily News, reports talks of a trade between the Denver Broncos and the New York Giants for Broncos LB Al Wilson have broken off because Wilson failed a physical given by the Giants.

No big deal. RB's tend to stop when they reach the end zone anyway.

Well thank God you said it again.

I love the guy and would take him over any of the 2nd tier RB's. We would have to take him in the second, if he is there. He'll be long gone by the 3rd. I would be far more surprised to see him fall to the 3rd than I would if he slipped into the 1st. He's going to be a solid weapon for whoever drafts him.

ditto

I have to believe that Levy/Jauron have a vision of what they want the team to be, whether it be schemes, personnel, or any number of other things, and they will do the best they can to get us there as soon as possible. And while I think they perfectly understand that Bills fans have been waiting forever to make the playoffs and be Super Bowl contenders, they have can't sacrifice what they believe to be the winning strategy in order to try and win now (redskin style). As far as what will make a successful season? That's going to be different not only for everyone you ask, but when you ask them. There are a lot of people right now that may say they will be patient this year and understand we still need too much help, but once the team starts losing will be the first in line calling for Marv/Jauron's heads. Personally, I am of the opinion that it takes a new front office/coaches 3 years to get things put together and in the direction you want them going. I don't want to see the team lose this year, but I think it is a probability. I will be much more critical of moves, or lack there of, next offseason and throughout next season.

While I'm not really high on taking a RB in the first round, I wouldn't be upset with that draft. I think we would be really lucky to get McCauley in the second. I think he'll be a bit of a project, but once he gets his fundamentals down I think he will turn into a very similar player as Clement. I don't know anything about Black other than what I've read, and he sounds very promising. Not the picks I would make, but I would be excited about the possibilities if that's who we ended up with.

Jeesh. I would figure that kind of blown wad would at least give you a story to tell.

Liked? I'd have to go with Lori. Probably the best researcher I've ever seen when it comes to sports info. She even talks trash with stats!

All you perverted bastards need to lay off Haley! I claimed her first. I am the ONLY perverted bastard that gets to gawk and talk dirty about her!

Everyone in this thread...including myself. Holy crap, no wonder we're in such bad shape.

Anyone remember this? Don't copy that floppy!

And people say there's no good discussions on the Wall anymore.

Good point.

This may be over analyzing, but one thought I always have about Turner is that he is also getting those numbers against defenses that have been preparing all week to do nothing but stop the run. Defensive game plans are created to stop Tomlinson, and while a different running style may help him in that respect, I still think it's impressive. Like I said, I don't really have a huge desire to get Turner, but I wouldn't be upset at all if we gave up a second rounder to get him.

I would start off offering a 3rd, if they don't bite, offer both of Baltimore's thirds.

I hadn't read that one yet, thanks. And that's exactly what I was talking about. The guy sounds perfect. (for a second round pick)

I don't suppose that would have anything to do with having the best player in the league in front of him? At this point, Michael Turner has proven FAR more than any RB available in the second round. Honestly, I don't care either way.

Here is an example of what I have read: From ESPN chat with Steve Muench... This isn't the first time I've read this type of statement on Hughes (even the specific reference to the cover 2) which is why I have started to take notice. I can't remember where else I've seen it, but if I come across it again I'll post it.

I know, I've heard about the combine scores. Since then I have read a couple times that Hughes shouldn't be looked down on based on combine scores. As we all know, 40 times tend to mean nothing about how a prospect actually plays. And while they shouldn't be discredited all together, I think far more attention should be placed on actual game activity...which unfortunately I haven't seen any so I'm forced to trust what I read. From what I gather, Hughes combine score weren't equal to how he plays, though he isn't thought of as a fast CB...hence the thought that if he goes to a cover 2 he will excel. Maybe those who have seen some Cal games can offer some more insight as they have with Lynch.

While the players sound nice, I am against trading up into the first round. I think using the extra 3rd as trade bait is a good idea, but I just think we give up too much (a whole extra player that could be expected to contribute right away) by moving into the first. I would prefer using that extra 3rd and a lower round pick (4 if we package baltimores pick, 5 if we use ours) to move back into the second round. That would still give us 4 first day picks. The more I read about him, the more I like Dameion Hughs as our choice at CB. He's supposedly has good instincts, has "ballhawking" skills, and I've read over and over again that if put drafted by a cover-2 team should do very well in the NFL. Obviously mock drafts are worthless, but since it's all I have to go by....he looks to be going in the latter half of round 2. I would be very happy to have something like this work out: 1: Peterson/Lynch/Willis 2: Harris/Best RB available 2: Hughes 3: Best DT available (Marcus Thomas?...I know, won't happen) Basically, depending on how they have them rated, get a RB and LB with the first two picks, get into position to get Hughes, and then work on DT (or any other position they think needs attention) in the 3rd.

I love hearing how the guy who was 5th in the league in tackles with a 142 missed so many tackles. I have never claimed that this guys it he best LB in the league, but he sure as hell would seriously upgraded our LB core, and people saying things about him that aren't true just because he signed somewhere else bugs me. His stats are comparable to the likes of Urlacher, Briggs (often considered two of the top cover 2 LBs out there), Keith Brooking, Keith Bulluck, etc... He's a very good LB, who's size didn't hamper him from being the leading tackler on the Super Bowl winning team, who has experience in our scheme. How would that not have been a great addition? But hey, he's gone. Doesn't matter now anyway.

Unless of course Penn State does it.

Good point, but why would that lead you to pick out Hall? He had good times, but like you said, it could be a faster player in any position (with enough talent to warrant a 1st round pick). As far as CB's go, Houston had the best time with 4.32. Patrick Willis had the best ILB times with 4.50. Okoye had a sub 5, which is quick for a DT. I agree we'll target speedy players, but I don't think that helps narrow anything down.