stuckincincy Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 On the contrary, I think the Broncos are stockpiling picks in a very deep, talent rich draft. They are taking the ol' Jimmy Johnson approach to the draft...and all the power to them! They now own 7 picks in the first 4 rounds - pick #s 15, 37, 61, 68, 119, 126, and 130. They should be able to built one hell of a solid core with those selections! Compare their strategy to the Washington Deadskins - they only have ONE PICK in the first four rounds of this draft - pick #53. Two totally different strategies - love what the Broncos have done so far - and the draft hasn't even started yet! 665725[/snapback] NE also stockpiled the past few years. It worked out well. B'gals did so, too, and ended up with 8 additional starters since '03, and some key bench strength. And save RB Chris Perry - they were worried about Dillon leaving and weren't sure Rudi Johnson was the answer - they drafted for need. They did forget DT, however... And had a pretty easy schedule last year. I think they will miss the playoffs this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I like what Denver did because this is definitely a "stockpile" draft. Hell, most of the players I really like in this draft will go in the second and third round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I like what Denver did because this is definitely a "stockpile" draft. Hell, most of the players I really like in this draft will go in the second and third round. 665753[/snapback] Which raises the question again....why did the 49ers make the trade. They said they needed starters & were less interested in depth. Is it just me or does this just sound wrong considering the depth of this draft. I agree with the 49ers trading down from #6 theory(won't be to us though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The Broncos only have one 1st round pick now, so they won't be looking to move up. In the other post of the same topic, someone pointed out that the broncos might not have the cap space for 2 1st's so they shopped it for a couple cheaper picks in the lower rounds 665680[/snapback] or they may package their 1st a 2nd and a 3rd to move up and get the one impact player they feel they need and reduce their overall cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Mike Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Maybe SF needed the 22nd pick so they could trade it to us for Clements. I don't really believe that, but one can wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Maybe SF needed the 22nd pick so they could trade it to us for Clements. I don't really believe that, but one can wish. 665867[/snapback] We can use that #22 to pick Antonio Cromartie or Tye Hil how awesome would that be trade a proven corner for a rookie corner only to pay the rookie corner big money that would rule..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nobody knows what Marv's "style" is...he's a first year GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Maybe SF needed the 22nd pick so they could trade it to us for Clements. I don't really believe that, but one can wish. 665867[/snapback] Why trade NC. We will have to do some driving (negotiate tough on a long term deal for him) but we are in the driver's seat regarding NC. Since the yearly cap hit at CB was lowered by the balloon payment to Winfield coming off the top 5 CB salaries his cap hit is lowered. Meanwhile, the overall cap goes way up with the nwq TV deal kicking in so we can easily afford to pay him. Throwing a hissy fit does not work at all for him as we now are late in the team building process and by the time the draft is done everyone will be set at CB for the most part. He is coming off a disappointing year and since we tagged him he will need to play hard in 06 to produce or he will be negotiating as an FA next year coming off two disappointing seasons in a row. Negotiate hard with NC and if we make a long term deal it will give him a far bigger paycheck than he has ever gotten before ad he will be here for perhaps his term as a player so he should be fairly content though he will be disappointed he did not get the top CB dollar in the league. I think it should work out even better for us if he simply plays under the tag. He must perform and also has a lot of financial reasons to be a good boy so he is more attractive as an FA not simply to owners but also to his fellow players as a good teammate. Even better, the CBA allows us to tag him again if we choose if he plays well in 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Why trade NC. We will have to do some driving (negotiate tough on a long term deal for him) but we are in the driver's seat regarding NC. Since the yearly cap hit at CB was lowered by the balloon payment to Winfield coming off the top 5 CB salaries his cap hit is lowered. Meanwhile, the overall cap goes way up with the nwq TV deal kicking in so we can easily afford to pay him. Throwing a hissy fit does not work at all for him as we now are late in the team building process and by the time the draft is done everyone will be set at CB for the most part. He is coming off a disappointing year and since we tagged him he will need to play hard in 06 to produce or he will be negotiating as an FA next year coming off two disappointing seasons in a row. Negotiate hard with NC and if we make a long term deal it will give him a far bigger paycheck than he has ever gotten before ad he will be here for perhaps his term as a player so he should be fairly content though he will be disappointed he did not get the top CB dollar in the league. I think it should work out even better for us if he simply plays under the tag. He must perform and also has a lot of financial reasons to be a good boy so he is more attractive as an FA not simply to owners but also to his fellow players as a good teammate. Even better, the CBA allows us to tag him again if we choose if he plays well in 06. 665879[/snapback] I'm thinking either we sign him up now to a long term deal or we lose him next year. Taging him next year will cost another 20% on top of what he gets this year. May as well pay him buckets now (we have heaps of cap room at the moment). Charles Woodson was a good example last year of what we will be looking at if we tag him again next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nobody knows what Marv's "style" is...he's a first year GM. 665878[/snapback] WRONG Marv pretty much ran the draft when Butler was GM. You can get a feel for his tendencies from that period. He is a conservative guy and his stated that he prefers to let the draft come to him and stick to his draft board. Marv is not a wheeler dealer like Jimmy Johnson was. He also likes DBs as early round picks because he sees them as a lesser risk due to their ability to be immediately productive in nickle sets and special teams even if they aren't ready to start. Based on his general philosophy, my guess is the only way he makes a trade on draft day is if the framework is put together prior to the draft and they move only far enough so he still gets one of the players targeted at the #8 spot. Highly doubt he makes a knee jerk trade on draft day from an unsolicited phone call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Mike Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 We can use that #22 to pick Antonio Cromartie or Tye Hil how awesome would that be trade a proven corner for a rookie corner only to pay the rookie corner big money that would rule..... 665874[/snapback] You think the #22 pick is going to have a contract that would give us a cap hit anywhere close to Nate's 7.22 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 only 1 665697[/snapback] OOPS! Definetly mis-read that the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts