SB Nation User Blog: Broncoman

Was McNair the toughest QB ever?

Broncoman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:21:06 -0000

After listening to the talk radio and sports center retrospectives of Steve McNair, everyone brings up that Steve McNair was the toughest QB to ever play. This post is not meant as disrespect to McNair, but I have to disagree with this assessment that McNair was somehow the toughest QB to play the game. I had to listen to one talk show idiot say the only guy he could compare McNair with as far as being tough was gag, Tim freaking Teabow and maybe Brett Favre. I about drove off the road after listening to that assessment.

I won’t argue that McNair was a good QB and a very good leader. And was McNair tough, yes, was he the toughest QB to play, that is highly debatable. I would throw John Elway into the mix of toughest to ever play the position, and here is why. Elway began his career in a different era than McNair, there were the rules regarding blows to the head and leading with the helmet. I can’t remember how many plays Elway got blasted straight in the back and would come back for the next play.

Looking at the statistics is even more mind blowing argument for John Elway. Elway was sacked a record 516 times and played in 234 games, or roughly he was sacked 2.2 times per game. McNair by contrast was sacked 254 times and played in 161 games or roughly he was sacked 1.57 times per game. Now getting QB hits is a tougher statistic, but lets say that a QB on average get hit 10 times a game, which is probably accurate. So Elway would have been hit roughly 2,340 times in his career and McNair roughly 1,610 times. Brett Favre by comparison has been sacked 469 times in 273 games or roughly 1.72 times a game, and has not missed a start. Looking back at some other long time QB’s by comparison Dan Fouts was sacked 319 times in 181 games or roughly 1.76 times per game, Jim Kelly was sacked 323 times in 160 game or roughly 2.01 times a game. Our own Craig Morton was sacked 373 times in 203 games or roughly 1.59 and that number is artificially low since the first four years he was in the league they didn’t keep sack records, and Morton played in an era before roughing the passer and the three step rule. As we can see, there have been many QB’s that have taken the same or greater punishment and still performed and generally performed at a higher level than McNair did.

So I will pose the question, who is the toughest QB to play the position?

Poll

Who was the toughest QB to play in the NFL.

The road back to the Super Bowl starts back in Greeley

Broncoman — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:40:03 -0000

This comes as more of a musing than anything with some thoughts of nostalgia sprinkled in, but I think that the Broncos lost something special when they decided to move training camp from the northern plains of Greeley to the confines of Dove Valley.

For many of you that didn’t grow up in Colorado, this may not make a lot of sense to you, but there was something magical and special about taking the drive up I-25 and spending a day or afternoon watching your favorite team practice. As a kid, it was one of the fun bonding experiences between my father and me, jumping in the car (usually without the benefit of AC) and taking the trip up I-25. Stopping at the diner/truck stop north of Denver (can’t remember the name but it is still there) and getting a big helping of the best biscuits and gravy. Remembering the smell of the sugar beets from our window AC system (something that can be described as being in a stockyard. Arriving at the University, finding a choice spot on the hill, chasing after the guys between and after practice to get their autographs, getting the autographs of players who wouldn’t make the team (and some that would). Being able to see guys like Elway, Gradishar, and Tommy Jackson running all over the field. Then having the whole car trip back to discuss all things Broncos with your Dad about how the team was going to do, who would make the team, who was really impressive in practice, all while the Summer thunderstorms played off in the background. Was the heat oppressive, somewhat, was it humid (for Colorado it was pretty humid), were the smells of sugar beets something close to driving through a 100 foot stack of manure, pretty much, but the memories were pretty priceless.

What does training camp mean to a team? These days with OTA’s, minicamps, and year round training, training camp could be argued to be less meaningfull than days or yore. Back in the day, team were able to have over 90 players or even sometimes 100 players coming to training camp. There were real position battles and battles for spots on the team. 12th round guys like Karl Mecklenburg made a name an garnered a position for themselves on the team. Every week the depth chart came out it was a topic of debate of who moved up and who moved back. These days, many of the position battles are taken care of well before camp begins and camp serves as a way to find the last 5-10 guys or so to make the roster and a way to implement some more of the playbook than anything else. But training camp served as something more, it was a way to come together as a team, you battled, bleed, and sweat together. You lived with each other for a month and had a true team bonding process. There was dealing with cramped living conditions, living with poor meals, and trying to stay out of trouble after dark in the middle of nowhere. These days guys can live at home or stay at the nearby hotel, there is a disconnect between the players and the team in that you are isolated after practice to a certain extent, you have to deal with other distractions besides football. When crunch time comes, I think having that experience together in the dog days of Summer will help most teams get over the obstacles that they will face in December and January.

Something else that gets lost is the reporting. Back in the days of Greeley, the papers were forced to have their reporters stay in Greeley with the team the entire time, you couldn’t really commute to Greeley and back and get your stories in on time. Reporters got to know the players and coaches much better because they lived there in Greeley with them. This brought a trust and understanding between the reporters and their subjects, something that gets lost when the reporters now get to go home every evening and they don’t share a common stake with the players.

Now I can’t say that I have been able to catch a training camp at Dove Valley, I have been to Dove Valley and it is a very nice facility. But there definitely seems to be more of a separation between players and fans than previous from what my dad has said (he took my younger brother to training camp at Dove Valley). Having a set limit on people attending practice also takes away from the tem in a lot of ways. It was not uncommon to have 10,000 or more people at a scrimmage in Greeley, think of what that would do to a team psychology to know that over 10,000 people are willing to drive over 2 hours, sit in the heat and smell of manure, just to watch a practice, it was ingrained in the players what the Broncos meant to the community and what a privilege it was to make the team. I understand the idea of cost savings of having everything located at Dove Valley, but I think that the Broncos have lost what the experience of having a training camp located out of town does for the fan base and for the team, it is time the Broncos went back to their roots and headed back to Greeley.

Poll

Should the Broncos move their training camp back to Greeley?

Where does Brandon Marshall play next season.

Broncoman — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:28:31 -0000

OK, so lets say it’s a foregone conclusion that Brandon is out the door, where are the likely landing spots? I doubt that we would trade him in division, although I am guessing Al Davis has been furiously trying to use the telegraph to contact the Broncos to inquire about Marshall. Many have said maybe Baltimore or Cleveland, again, I think that the Broncos would likely want him out of conference if possible. I also have my doubts of McDaniels willingness to deal with Mangini since there is a feud between Mangini and McDaniels old boss. So that leaves us with some interesting NFC teams (IMO).

1.) NY Giants, the giants struggled somewhat last year when Plaxico Burress was out of the lineup. Having a big physical WR like Brandon Marshall would be what the doctor ordered for the Giants offense and would help Manning comfort zone. Now the question of what would they give up, the Giants seemed reluctant to chase either Braylon Edwards or Anquan Boldin this off-season since both teams wanted a first round draft pick. The Giants run a 4-3 defense and don’t have many players on the team that would be considered good fits for a 3-4 defense, they do have one of our former WR who seems to be developing in Hixon who may be available with a lower tiered draft pick. I would also have said maybe one of their RBs, but we seem to be well stocked now in that category.

2.) Philadelphia, the Eagles have struggled to find a consistent, big WR for McNabb ever since TO left town. The Eagles just resigned McNabb to a healthy extension with the hopes of making one more run. A player like BM would fit well into what they like to do, and take pressure off Westbrook to carry the offensive load. Again, Philly runs a 4-3 and doesn’t have too many guys that would translate into a 3-4. They do have a big possession WR in Hank Basket who has some ability but definitely is not at BM level. I would guess it would be draft picks.

3.) Chicago, obviously reuniting the dynamic duo in Chi-town may not be what the Broncos faithful would have in mind. But Chicago obviously would like some weapons to go with their new QB, the two obviously have a connection and I am sure both would be thrilled if BM ended up a Bear. And I think Chicago would elect Pat Bowlen their Mayor if that happened. Again they run a 4-3 defense and there are limited appeal in someone like Lance Briggs who may be a good ILB, but would have limited upside beyond the next two years and would cost a tremendous amount. Devin Hester and a pick may be a better scenario with Hester becoming a full time KR in Denver, instantly upgrading the return units.

4.) San Francisco, the 49ers have struggled to find a number one WR since TO left. The free agent signings have been stop gaps. They run a 3-4, but they may move to a 4-3 under Mike Singletary, whoever, many of their current defensive players, with the exception of Patrick Willis and Nate Clement are not what I would call upgrades over what we have. Manny Lawson may be available, but I see him being the same player as Jarvis Moss. In addition, after drafting Michael Crabtree, they may not want another number 1 WR.

5.) Minnesota, this team probably needs a better QB over an upgrade at WR, but Marshall would provide an upgrade and formable 1-2 punch at WR being teamed with Berian. This team also runs a 4-3,, howvere they do have some DT in Pat Williams who would translate well into a NT, whoever, I doubt the Vikings would give up Williams for Marshall. Again, this would likely involve draft picks.

6.) Arizona, this has been brought up in a swap for Boldin. I doubt at this point that Arizona would be willing to trade for BM straight up for Boldin due to the risks involved on their part. This may involve the Broncos throwing in some compensatory picks based on how BM performs in order to hedge the Cardinals risks.

Poll

Where does Brandon Marshall play next year?

NY Giants

6 votes

Eagles

3 votes

Bears

4 votes

Vikings

2 votes

Cardinals

4 votes

49ers

0 votes

Broncos

71 votes

Somewhere else

20 votes

110 votes | Poll has closed

Will Simms make this team?

Broncoman — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:18:26 -0000

I will admit I was a little stunned to see that Kyle Orton was named as starter after a very limited time in practice and mini-camps. Which brings me to the idea of what happens to Chris Simms now?

When we signed Chris Simms, I was very happy, I thought it was a significant upgrade over Patrick Ramsey and I saw Simms as someone who could win games if he had to play for an extended period of time. I was somewhat torn on my evaluation of Simms in having watched him at Texas I saw a QB that could not win when it mattered, but I saw a gutsy leader in Tampa Bay that looked like he had run into some bad luck. Now when the Broncos signed him, I was somewhat stunned at the amount of money for someone that was supposed to be a back-up QB. But I figured since he had some good starting experience that he was worth it. Then came the Jay Cutler ordeal and I looked at Simms as someone who may be allowed to start should the Broncos trade Cutler, and his signing made a lot more sense (as far as the dollars). When we traded for Orton, I figured that the two QBs would be given an open opportunity to compete for the position of starting QB, and the best QB would get the nod.

Generally I may be of the conspiracy vision that Orton was given the reigns because McDaniels could not justify the trade and start Simms. However, I think that any coach will generally start the guy who gives them the best chance to win, with some exceptions for high first round picks. But as we saw in Arizona and Tennessee, that good coaches will start the guy who can win the most games for them, regardless of the money owed to a rookie or high draft pick. Even though I have disagreed with many choices that the head coach has made, I figure that McDaniels would also have the same mindset and would start the best QB, regardless of the political implications from the fan base or ownership. So this leads me to believe that Orton obviously has shown that he is far superior to Simms or that Simms just is not that good, which I fear may be the case. Coming into the competition, I figured Simms would have a leg up on Orton because he had been able to study and practice more than Orton had. I thought their skill set was very similar and I figured that the battle would not be settled until training camp. Obviously McDaniels has seen something in Orton or conversely not seen something in Simms to name Orton as starter this quickly.

I now wonder whether Simms will even make this team. McDaniels obviously drafted a player in Brandistar that he sees as a good potential developmental project. In addition, the Patriots have shown a willingness to go into a season with backups with limited or no starting experience (see Matt Cassel), it may not be too much of a stretch to think that Simms may be playing for a spot on this team and that McDaniels may feel comfortable enough to have Brandistar as the Number 2 QB for this season. Maybe that is reading too much into the situation, but again, the inability of Simms to keep this an open competition going into training camp leads me to believe that there may be some more issues with Simms versus Orton being that much superior. But I have some serious doubts that the Broncos will want to carry Simms salary and have to worry about resigning Orton next season if they know that Simms will never be a suitable starter.

Comments?

Poll

Who will be the Broncos backup QB in 2009?

Chris Simms, of course!

134 votes

Tom Brandistar

21 votes

Jake Plummer

15 votes

Someone else

2 votes

172 votes | Poll has closed

Want a better Broncos team, start cheering for the rest of the AFC West

Broncoman — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:18:13 -0000

With a fair amount of time on my hands, I had been thinking about the state of the AFC West in general. This division used to be known as the toughest division in football with no easy victories (generally) and usually would have a legit shot at representing the AFC in the Super Bowl. In fact, in the first 33 years of the Super Bowl, the AFC West sent a team to the super bowl roughly 40 percent of the time. In the past 9 years we have had one representative with a rate of roughly 11%. Looking back at the recent winners since Denver’s last Super Bowl, one thing stands out, they generally came from a division with at least two teams going to the playoffs and generally had winning teams in their division, the only exceptions being the 2006 Colts who did have two other 8-8 teams in Jacksonville and Tennessee, and the Patriots in 2003, who did have the Dolphins at 10-6, but they did not make the playoffs that year.

During the past 9 years we have watched the general quality of the AFC West diminish to a sad state of affairs. Teams like the Raiders and Chiefs have routinely been having 4 wins or less seasons. The Broncos and Chiefs who have historically had a great home-field advantage have seen that advantage evaporate. The AFC West is no longer the toughest division, in fact it likely is the worst division in football. If Denver wants to improve, it must have the rest of the division improve, as well.

Now I will admit that I do take some perverse satisfaction in seeing teams like the Raiders and Chiefs flailing in the water. But the cold reality is that if Denver is to regain a position of yearly contender for the Super Bowl, we need other teams in the AFC West to improve. This may seem counterintuitive, since it may be argued if we have six guaranteed wins a year that will make it easier for a run in the playoffs. But I think that history shows that when you have strong opponents in your division it will lead to being a better team in the long run. Wins at places like KC and Oakland should be tough, it helps harden a team for the playoffs. Being able to go into a place like Arrowhead or Oakland and beat a good team on their home-field will make a team confident for the playoffs. I would argue even a close tough loss to a good division foe may be better than a blowout win at a bad division foe. If you watched the America’s Game airing of the 96-97 Broncos Super Bowl team there was an very interesting quote from Elway and Griffith about losing on the road at KC and Pittsburgh during the regular season, both said having the sting of the loss and knowing what they needed to do to improve in the next meeting helped prepare them for the playoff games on the road. Had they won the games in the regular season, they probably would of not seen areas where they needed to improve and been set up for defeat in the playoffs.

So as much as I despise the Raiders, Chiefs, and Chargers, it really is in the Broncos best long term interest for these teams to get better. We need to have those teams compete with us on a higher level, we need to push them and in turn be pushed by them. Trying to capture a weak division every season will not help the Broncos or any other team in the division make long post-season runs, because the teams won’t be battle tested. So as much as I must hate to admit it, I will now have to cheer for other AFC West teams when they are not playing the Broncos (well except for the Raiders).

Want to improve the secondary, move Champ to safety

Broncoman — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:03:01 -0000

This has been a topic of debate that traditionally I have been against. I felt Champ’s best value was at CB, yet looking over the past season and watching some Super Bowl highlight films, I have come to the conclusion that Champ needs to be moved to safety. Granted there are some factors against this move, namely he would be the highest paid safety in the league and one generally does not pay safeties as much as a number 1 corner, two we signed two safeties in Dawkins and Hill and it would relegate one of them to an expensive bench player, three is who do you put in at Champ’s spot at CB, and four is would he be able to withstand the added punishment at safety. All of these are valid arguments against such a move, yet I think the short-term and long-term benefits would outweigh all of these arguments.

I think the first myth that needs to be exposed is how valuable a cover corner really is. The fact is that looking back at many of the past Super Bowl teams and their CB tandems were generally solid but not spectacular, in fact their safeties were generally much better players than their CBs. They (the teams) knew that provided the front seven could dominate the line of scrimmage and get pressure on the QB, that they could survive with average to good CB, Pittsburgh, the Colts, even the Pats did not have what I would call dominate CBs, they had CBs that could make plays on poorly thrown balls when the QB was under pressure. Look at the teams with what would be considered to have dominate CB’s (Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, 49ers,etc..), none have what I would consider exceptional defenses, San Diego being the best, but again that was generally due to the play of the front seven, take away a guy like Merriman and their CB’s look very average. Dion Sanders made this myth that a CB could take away a side of the field, granted I think a CB can take away a WR, but this notion that a CB can take away a side of the field is ludicrous. Most offense coordinators will simply run a cover corner out of the play and throw under the routes or over the routes, thereby eliminating a cover corner greatest weapon in getting interceptions.

Many CB have made a successful transition to safety, I point to Rod Woodson being the model that I think Champ could follow. Granted Woodson is a bit bigger than Champ, but both play very similar games. If you watch Champ closely, you will not that he actually plays CB very similar to a safety in that he will play a triangle technique where he reads the QB and the WR at the same time, this technique and style indicate that he should be able to easily transition to a safety position that relies on reading the QB and WR routes versus a strait man-to-man coverage. Many would argue (myself included previously) that Champ would not be able to withstand the punishment of being a safety, I would tend to agree if he is forced to play in the box and be a run stuffer, however, if he is allowed to be a deep safety that can properly set up his tackles and is taking on WR’s more versus RB,TE, and FB, then I think the move would likely prolong his career. Most of the plays that he has been injured on, typically have occurred near or at the line of scrimmage when he has been tackling RB’s and taking on more powerfully built players, he has very good technique and if he is playing further behind the line of scrimmage, he can properly set up those tackles and not have to worry about taking on guards or tackles coming on sweeps. Tyrone Braxton (another CB converted to safety) always said, it doesn’t matter how it looks, as long as you tackle the guy before he gets to the end zone, then you have done your job. Bailey would generally be used as the last man method and I think he would be fine in that position. I think the longer he is forced to play at the line of scimmage the shorter his career will be since teams will continue to run at him in hopes of punishing him.

Filling his shoes at the CB position may be a tall order, but again, a cover CB is only effective if the front seven can put pressure on the opposing QB. Given enough time, most NFL QB’s can beat a elite CB, having Champ in at CB did not make the Broncos a better defense, the Broncos defense was better when they shut down the run and could put pressure on the QB, regardless of who was playing CB. Seeing that the Broncos paid a very steep price for A. Smith this year, he should be starting at CB if they think he was worthy of a potential top 10 pick next year. In addition, having Bailey and Dawkins roaming the back half will allow for the CB’s to play tighter underneath coverage since both Bailey and Dawkins can recover for CB mistakes. But for Bailey to be an effective weapon on defense, the Broncos need to have him covering greater portions of the field and to not be limited to matching up one on one. They need to be able to disguise his coverage, put him in position to make plays on passes, and have the offense guessing where he will be. If a QB knows where he will be, chances are he won’t throw there, but if they can disguise his coverage from moving him to safety, his interception totals should increase and help the defense. By keeping him lined up at CB, we are really limiting what he can do on defense since the opposing offense can devise schemes to limit his involvement in plays.

Poll

Should Champ be moved to safety?

No, we already signed two guys and he is too small.

124 votes

Yes, we need as many playmakers in the secondary.

22 votes

Move him to offense.

7 votes

Trade him now.

9 votes

162 votes | Poll has closed

Thoughts on 2006 QBs

Broncoman — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:30:11 -0000

Well after recovering from my recent layoff, and in between sending my resume out, I have been musing on something to blog about. My last foray obviously ticked off more than a few in the MHR universe, so I thought maybe something controversial but more related to the Broncos.

I have seen the daily Jay bashing observations, and I do ponder what about the rest of the 2006 QB draft class. Jay has clearly shown that he is head and shoulders above the other classmates, but I am wondering if the QB situation of Orton/Simms struggles this year, what is the possibility of bringing in one of Jay’s fellow classmates at the QB position. May seem far-fetched now, but all of Jay’s fellow classmates (VY, Leinart, and Tarvaris Jackson) will all likely be looking for employment elsewhere next season. Now I will admit, I would much rather have Jay Cutler, but I know baring some miracle, that will not happen, and I do hold out hope that maybe Orton or Simms can be a capable signal caller, but I do have my doubts that will be situation next season, and I expect that QB position will be one that is looked at to be upgraded next season. Now many would say maybe you draft another QB, like Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy, but after dealing our first round pick next year, that looks like a slim possibility, especially if the Bears do well next season, so that leaves the free agency as really the only way to immediately upgrade the position.

What I like about Vince Young, he is athletic, probably the most “athletic” QB to play since John Elway. He has a strong desire to win and has shown he is capable of putting his team on his shoulders and win, regardless of the talent around him. What I don’t like, his footwork and mechanics, and inability to learn a complex system. This would be a high risk potential high reward signing. The question would be could Young accept the coaching of McDaniels and company and would he be willing to play within a system. If the answer is yes, then I think it would be a good signing, if no then a bad signing.

What I like about Leinart, he has good touch and appears to be relatively fundamentally sound and seems capable of being a good leader. What I don’t like is that he obviously lacks a desire to get better and seems more worried about his image and status versus actually getting better. I also don’t like his accuracy and arm strength, two things that would generally get you killed in the NFL. I think Leinart can play, but I am not sure if he will be anything more than a stop gap QB that will be around 500 winning percentage and never lead to anything.

What I like about Jackson is that he seems to be a natural leader and has very good athletic ability and arm strength. What I don’t like is his accuracy and lack of big play ability. I think he does somewhat suffer from having a lack of quality targets to throw to, but with the running game the Vikings throw out there, Jackson should have been able to exploit a lot of one on one matchups. I don’t see a lot of upside in signing Jackson, in that I think he makes a great backup, but probably is never going to be a legit starter in this league.

So I will throw it out to the MHR faithful, if Orton and Simms don’t perform well, would you be in favor of signing one of the fellow 2006 QB classmates?

Poll

Would you be in favor of signing any of the 2006 QB's for 2010, if Orton and Simms aren't the answer?

Sign Vince Young

6 votes

Sign Matt Leinart

19 votes

Sign Tarvaris Jackson

4 votes

Trade back for Jay Cuter

11 votes

Sign a smart vet

35 votes

Sign no one, draft a QB early

43 votes

118 votes | Poll has closed

An interesting debate

Broncoman — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:04:25 -0000

This is not so much Bronco related as it is related to our values and senses. Michael Silver Silver Article has a great article calling on the Washington Redskins to change their name. I for one whole heartly agree that it is time for the NFL and the Washington franchise to come into the 21st century and give up this blatently racist nickname. I have known and am friends with a great deal of Native Americans from various tribes and pueblos from my time in New Mexico, some of them really liked the name, others found it disgusting, I find it disgusting myself (of note, I am not a Native American). People will decry that it is an honored name, but really, it is a shameful reminder of the suffering of Native Americans and general lack of respect and racist attitudes that this country has shown them. Since the Broncos are in the west, a lot of our fan base may have more in touch with Native American feelings and thoughts on this subject matter. I really don't have a problem with schools using various tribe names (such as the Souix or Seminoles), I think most of those schools do a great job promoting the tribes and bringing positive attention to the various tribes history and tradition. What does bother me is names like Redskins which is a name that derides a Native American and conjurs a poor stereotype. To me, the simple solution would be to change the Redskin name to a tribe that is local to that portion of the country. I am curious what the MHR thoughts are on this matter?

Poll

Should Washington change their nickname?

Yes, time to drop racist names.

98 votes

No, it is their heritage and it is not meant to be racist.

169 votes

267 votes | Poll has closed

Lakers or Rockets, who do you want the Nuggets to play

Broncoman — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:49:36 -0000

Just a quick poll, I am getting really geeked about the conference finals, but wanted to see who you rather see the Nuggets play. On one, hand, with the Rockets injuries, I think that Denver matches up very well with the Rockets and could make quick work of them, although I think defensively they are playing much better than the Lakers. On the other hand, I would love to see the Nuggets destroy the Lakers since I can't stand the Lakers and their fans. But I think it would likely be a tougher road to get to the finals, since I think that when the Lakers are on, they are very tough to beat, regardless of who is playing them. So who would you rather play.

Poll

Who do you want the Nuggets to play next.

Rockets - Good defense, but lacking firepower to beat the Nuggets

21 votes

Lakers - No defense will spell a trip to the finals for the Nuggets

22 votes

Don't care, Nuggets will roll whoever wins

13 votes

56 votes | Poll has closed

An exercise in value

Broncoman — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:06:24 -0000

There seems to be some consternation on mine and several others here on the whole Moreno pick. While I have heard arguments both ways, some I agree with and some I don’t, I thought we might want to do an exercise in what if, to see if we truly agree with the pick.

Granted this scenario has no basis in reality so it is more of a exercise in trying to determine if the love or hate of the pick is do more to a love or hate of HC McDaniel and Co., or if it really is based on not liking the selection.

Lets for a moment assume that Mike Shanahan had not been fired and that Jay Cutler had not been traded. Lets also assume that Shanahan had not pursued the free agent RBs that we had, maybe he signed Lamont Jordan, but he had not signed three FA RBs, which I doubt he would of. We could also assume that Mike Shanahan may have kept his defensive coordinator or maybe hired a new one, but in likelihood, we would be running a 4-3 defense come next season. Now lets fast-forward to the draft. We don’t have the extra picks because Jay would still be here and I am assuming working under a new contract. What would happen or be your view if we had selected Moreno with the 12th overall pick and not gotten a defensive player? Would you be happy, or would you be livid? I am guessing the majority of the reaction would be toward the livid side since Mike Shanahan had shown that year in and year out he could mine RB talent from later rounds in the draft, why ignore the defense with the 12th overall pick would be the main reasoning? Some would hail it as a brilliant pick in that we need a primary back with talent and getting by with scrap heap RB’s culled from the depths of the UFA wire has bitten us in the butt too many times this past couple of years.

Now lets reverse the pick, lets say we took the best defensive player available (you fill in the blank Jenkins, Orakpo, Ayers, Cushing, Mr. Potato Head, etc…), and lets say we followed the same MO of previous drafts and maybe got a RB in the 4th to 7th round, maybe get an UFA RB like Ian Johnson and/or Jeremiah Johnson, what would your grade be then. Would you say Shanahan is doing what he should and addressing the defense and looking for better production from a RB in lower rounds? Or would you be critical that they let Moreno go over maybe what would be graded as an overall inferior defensive player?

I guess my point being is that sometimes I think we get blinded (one way or another) based on who is making the pick, and not look at the pick itself in the greater context of the overall draft and what you try to accomplish. The whole need versus want argument that TSG put forward earlier is an interesting analogy of how to draft. The draft is obviously an inexact science at best, but I think when we look to evaluate a player, we really need to look at the overall context, was this the best overall value or could we get close to the same value later and address other needs going a different direction. I think some believe that if you are critical of selection, it means that you don’t like the player or had someone else you wanted, for me this really has nothing to do with that. This really comes into was this the best value for that selection in the greater good of the team. I think that is really where the debate needs to be framed.

If Moreno turns out to be the second coming of LT then I would whole heartedly agree that this was an excellent selection; but that is a slim chance. If he has a better than average career but maybe is never a top tier RB, then it was a wasted pick (IMO). It is hard to argue that you cannot get as close to as good of production from lower round RB’s, we have proven it and most other teams have followed suit in that philosphy. Look at last years top 15 rushing leaders and you see an interesting mix of where guys were selected:

Adrian Peterson – 1st Round

Michael Turner – 5th Round

DeAnglo Williams – 1st Round

Clinton Portis – 2nd Round

Thomas Jones – 1st Round

Steve Slaton – 3rd round

Matt Forte – 2nd Round

Chris Johnson – 1st Round

Ryan Grant – UFA

LaDainian Tomilinson – 1st Round

Brandon Jacobs – 4th Round

Steven Jackson – 1st Round

Fred Gore – 3rd Round

Marshawn Lynch – 1st Round

Derrick Ward – 7th Round

Obviously a lot of 1st rounders, but also just as many later round guys, you also have to ask what the value of some of the 1st round guys really are when you see that four were on playoff teams others were on average to horrible teams..

For the record, I hope Moreno defies the odds and becomes an LT or AP type of player, the views are many on him. Lets face it, every RB is going to have some detractors coming out (Adrian Peterson was injury prone and took too much punishment and LT was a small school guy with inflated numbers), Moreno is going to be no different in that aspect in that he will have proponents and detractors. The question ultimately will be not whether he is a good player or not, it will be was the pick a better value for the team long term?

Poll

Was selecting Moreno the best value?

Yes, he was the BPA, and will add tremendously to the offense long term

51 votes

No, RB's can be found throughout the draft, we had other fish to fry

4 votes

No more debate, I want the season to start.

13 votes

68 votes | Poll has closed