SB Nation User Blog: Colinski

TEN BUCKEYES FILE NFL PAPERWORK

Colinski — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:48:12 -0000

Ten Buckeyes have filed paperwork to see where they would be drafted -- should they choose to enter.

Is Cameron Heyward coming out? That's the BIG question.

Underclassmen can declare early for the draft but the NFL has a system in place that allows them to submit their names and be given the opinion of the NFL's Collegiate Advisory Committee, a group of NFL experts on draft projection, which informs the player where they would go if they declare.

I won't attempt to re-trace the evolution of the CAC -- because I don't know it -- but what's important for us is that Cameron Heyward, a stellar DE34 who's actually deserving of our (Chicago's) high pick, might come out. Of course, he might stay in school, too, since players often do that after seeking the CAC's evaluation. And he said that he would stay in previous comments to the media, but many players say that and enter anyways. It seems to be the thing to do -- talk about your teammates and how much you want to come back regardless of what everyone else says and then declare anyways.

Heyward will be given a first round grade (IMO and others'), despite what it says on draftnik sites, which are often not up-to-date at this point. It's possible he'll come in slightly lower, such as a 1-2 (late 1st, early 2nd), but he's going to be getting very good news from the CAC. It's only a question of how good, since he could propel himself into the top few picks in 2011 if he decides to wait one more year, and the lure of an even higher salary might reinforce his decision to wait.

All we can say at this point is that "we'll see." January 15 is the deadline for declaring for draft. It may take a couple weeks for the CAC to perform its draft evaluation but we'll know fairly soon, and Heyward will be asked repeatedly until the question is settled on Jan. 15.

I know what I want for Christmas -- a dominant DE34 named Cameron Heyward in a Broncos uniform come April. And I'm willing to wait until then, do you hear me Santa?

REPLAY !!!!

Colinski — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:52:06 -0000

Colt game on replay at 6, 8 eastern -- RIGHT NOW (Tuesday Dec. 15)

8:00 PM

NFL REPLAY: DEN vs. IND

in just a few minutes ---

Denver Broncos vs. Indianapolis Colts (12/13/09) - Multiple records fall as Indianapolis improves to 13-0 and clinches homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. The Colts' 22-game win streak is now the best mark ever in the NFL while Brandon Marshall passes Terrell Owens' single-game receptions record with 21 grabs.

an early Christmas MOCK - tis the season

Colinski — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:15:49 -0000

it's early but Santa is on his way (almost) so here we go again -- MOCK TIME.

Rules -- I'll be using the Big Board from DraftTek, which includes underclassmen and is culled from the rankings of a variety of quality sites.

As in my past MOCKs, only picks that fall below our designated draft slot will be considered. I've broken that rule only when a player appeared to be available at our pick (Malcolm Jenkins, who did end up being available in the real draft) despite what DT's BB says.

Reaches are explained, and are usually for positional fit considerations. This is also the same logic a team would use, since their Big Board is not the same as those listed on draftnik sites.

Also, later picks will be higher than in reality because compensatory picks have yet to be awarded, which will happen at the annual meeting. We'll also know by mid-January which underclassmen will enter early. The point at this juncture is to merely get a look at the type of draft that would be possible. I think MOCKs are valuable tools for examining team needs and re-creating the mental exercise of team building.

Position -- I've set our position at #12 based on Chicago's current record and our own picks at #25 in each later round (our real pick order could vary as it rotates between members of a tied group). Chicago is currently in the #9 - #14 group and we are in the #23 - #27 group.

THE PICKS

#12 -- Rolando McClain - ILB ( +3 reach )

DISCUSSION: the Big Board has Colt McCoy @ #12 but I don't see us trying use our top pick at QB at this point. I didn't formally state needs in advance (which I could still do by editing) but I don't mind doing an exploratory MOCK to see how I feel about the picks, which helps me develop a strategic draft plan in a backwards sort of way.

OTHERS -- Brandon Graham @ #14 is a prospect who interests me but I can't completely warm to the idea of taking a player that early who appears to have talents that we already have on the team. Unlike the thrust of late, which emphasizes production over workout warrior metrics, I'm reluctant to take someone who doesn't appear to offer some metrics.

Also -- Trent Williams - OT @ #16 and Charles Brown - OT @ #18. I've outlined the justification for taking an OL in previous posts and that thinking has now transformed into taking a OT in the early part of the draft. Williams can play OG, but I'm not convinced he's the best value. I think we may be able to find appropriate value if can trade for more picks and make an OT selection at a later point. A suggested trade with Green Bay, which would allow them to pick an OT, makes sense since we could still address the OL adequately somewhat later in the draft.

#57(#25 in 2nd) -- Cameron Heyward @ #65 - DE34 ( + 8 reach )

DISCUSSION: He's not really going to be available that late so it's almost like cheating. He also appears headed back to OSU but you can never know for sure, unless they formally declare (hire an agents, etc.). It would be an extraordinarily easy pick if he's available, but there are a number of prospect that we'd also like that are ranked immediately above this pick, which is why so many draftniks like the idea of us trading our 1st pick for lower picks, even more than usual.

OTHERS -- Maurkice Pouncey @ #56 is tantalizingly close. Arthur Jones - DE34 @ #51 and Dan Williams NT @ #53 also are frustratingly gone. Jones is an injury red flag but that's the only reason he slips this far. More on him later. Williams could also help at DE#4 perhaps, so it's irritating to see scheme appropriate players elude us.Stephan Paea DT @ #57 is another prospect I'd love to fit in some how. Like Graham, he produces, but his metrics make me wonder whether he fits our scheme. There's so many players we could use around this point in the draft that I"ll save my comments on all the possibilities till later.

APPRAISAL -- I think you have to reflect on what you've achieved after each pick and re-evaluate accordingly. One of the objectives was to find help on the OL and it's yet to be addressed. It's not a worry, actually, but it is something to think about in the following rounds.

#89(#25 in 3rd) -- Matt Tennant - OC/OG @ #94 ( +5 reach )

DISCUSSION: It's a pleasure to address the OL finally, and this would be a perfect pick even though OT is still a concern. I've written so much about addressing the interior-OL but things have changed in the last two days. Finding a good C/G candidate is still a worthwhile goal but a big OT/OG hybrid might be even more attractive at this point. However, it's irrational to worry about what a pick isn't rather than what he is.

#121(#25 in 4th) -- Mike Neal - DT43/DE34 @ #130 ( +9 reach )

This was a very tough pick. I'm not nearly as 'up' on the talent in this draft as I need to be. There simply weren't many scheme-appropriate and positional need choices available. An alternate choice might be Justin Boren - OC/OG, who's a reach of ( + 29 ). I don't have much confidence that DT's Big Board is completely accurate at this point. I've heard that Boren is very good but I have to rely on 2nd hand opinions at this point. Neither Neal nor Boren would be poor choices, and, as before, the only real problem is in what hasn't been filled. Both the defensive secondary and OT could have been good choices, if only I had more confidence in my knowledge of the prospects available.

ALTERNATES -- Joe McNight - RB/KR had some appeal. Picking another RB after last year's draft might raise some eyebrows but we'd be a little better off if Arrington had been able to play for us this year, so I'm not shy about drafting a player with his skill set. I'd also take a OT if I had a clue of who's worth taking.

#185(#25 in 6th round) -- The Big Board isn't helping much now. I'd probably take Vladimir Ducasse - OG/OT who's at #209 for a reach of (+ 24). A CB would be an appropriate choice, too, but I'm not familiar with these prospects and I don't want choose without some knowledge of their abilities.

#217(#25 in the 7th round) -- Here's some of the alternatives: Myron Rolle at #223 (reach +6 ). Ted Larsen - OC/OG at #217 ( 0 reach). Riley Cooper - WR at #225 ( + 8 reach).

DRAFT SELECTIONS:

1) - Rolando McClain - ILB

2) - Cameron Heyward - DT/DE34

3) - Matt Tennant - OC

4) - Mike Neal - DT

6) - Vladimir Ducasse - OG

7) (?) Riley Cooper - WR

ANALYSIS: I doubt that I'd actually ignore the CB position but that's what can happen in a real draft. I'd also have difficulty ignoring Myron Rolle if he were available that late -- which is very doubtful. Picking players when you have no real room is a bad practice, but I think they would take him anyways.

I'll save further comments for replies to other's comments.

Is it worth seeing again?

Colinski — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:40:27 -0000

For the third week in a row, NFL channel will be replaying the Broncos game.

On NFL Replay
NFL Replay will re-air the Denver Broncos' 34-23 win over the San Diego Chargers on Wednesday, Oct. 21 at 9:30 p.m. ET.

I don't have a lot more to say here but I wanted to post this in a place where people are likely to see it, which isn't the case for Fan Shots.

On NFL Replay
NFL Replay will re-air the Denver Broncos' 34-23 win over the San Diego Chargers on Wednesday, Oct. 21 at 9:30 p.m. ET.

I've found that a second viewing allows you to look for some of the things you missed in the original. I usually follow the ball initially, but the second time around allows me to concentrate on other things.

On NFL Replay NFL Replay will re-air the Denver Broncos' 20-17 overtime win over the New England...

Colinski — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:34:39 -0000

On NFL Replay
NFL Replay will re-air the Denver Broncos' 20-17 overtime win over the New England Patriots on Wednesday, Oct. 14 at 9:30 p.m. ET.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009101110/2009/REG5/patriots@broncos

NFL REPLAY of Broncos V. Cowboys (Tue. 6:00PM MDT/ 8:00PM EDT)

Colinski — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:16:33 -0000

NFL REPLAY of Broncos V. Cowboys (Tue. 6:00PM MDT/ 8:00PM EDT)

" Broncos 17, Cowboys 10, Tuesday, Oct. 6 at 8 p.m. ET

REPLAY: Chicago V. Denver -- Monday, Sept. 1 @ 4:00PM EDT

Colinski — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:42:02 -0000

REPLAY: Chicago V. Denver -- Monday, Sept. 1 @ 4:00PM EDT

That's coming up this afternoon, at 2:00 for us mountain dwellers.

REPLAY of Seattle game

Colinski — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:38:30 -0000

Replay of Seattle V. Denver game on NFL Channel at 4:00 AM EDT/ 2:00 AM MDT, Monday, August 24.

There isn't much to say but I'll fill some space here to meet the minimum requirement.

I find watching the game a second time to be particularly useful for analyzing team and individual performance. The Seattle game may not be the game you want to watch a second time but it's surprising how many little things you can notice the second time around. Having foreknowledge of the results allows you to pay attention to details that would normally overlook if you're watching the ball during the initial viewing.

signed speedster RB Marcus Thigpen

Colinski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:37 -0000

The Broncos added another RB to bolster depth at a position that's been thin because of the waiver of Torain and the injury to Moreno in the opening game.

Marcus Thigpen

I wanted to post something on Thigpen because I think he's an interesting talent. I won't attempt to research him at this time but I recall reading about him in my pre-draft analysis. Please add any information you may have on him since this is quick, informal post.

Thigpen belongs on my list of darkhorse roster surprises.

Here's why he could make roster:

Speed, speed, speed. The one thing we lack at RB is a speed back and he could give that to us.
Return ability; he was one top the top return specialists in the draft and there a signs that they're still looking for a returner. My recollection is that he had a number of returns for touchdowns in the junior year but came back to earth in his senior year.
A good third down back like Arrington, whose position we never quite filled after he was released.
Receiving ability. Indiana tried to convert him into a WR and he has quite a few receptions for his career.

The bottom line is he fits our needs in a number of ways, and he'd also be a very good choice for the practice squad, too. (BTW - those of you who liked the idea of Alridge will like this guy)

Surveying the Defense

Colinski — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:25:31 -0000

Much of the MSM’s attitude towards the Broncos was infected during the Cutlergate issue so there’s been monkey pile of proffered opinions that contain little serious analysis. We can lump much of this in the Group Think pile, and ignore it — for the most part.

There are some kernels of truth, or logic, contained therein, so I wanted to address what has merit.

[note: this originally appeared as comment to another post but is reposted in near-verbatim here]

BASELINE ANALYSIS

The standard line of thinkings goes: we were terrible and added little so we’re still terrible. Added to this is the adjunct: scheme changes depress performance so we’re going to suffer even more on top of this.

There’s a sort of “logical arithmetic” that underlies this analysis; you simply add the negatives and expect a poor defensive performance. What’s not readily apparent is that this is an invalid form of reasoning.

For instance — we’re replacing many of the players who were deemed to be part of the problem, but the MSM’s ‘received wisdom’ (MSM’s RW hereafter) regards this as a negative! In fact, the baseline performance level that they’re using is based on these ‘problem players’ and the depressing effects of adding new players and changing the scheme are considered further negatives, which could potentially depress performance even more!

Let me go further — in regards to the scheme change; viewing the switch to a 3-4 as a negative creates a logical conundrum. The implication is that keeping Slowik’s ‘non-scheme scheme’ would have been preferable. Moreover, since the baseline for our performance is arbitrarily set at the end of the Shanahan/Slowik era, the defensive changes we made BEFORE last season aren’t considered as part of the problem, but rather, they’re considered in the positive. Any scheme changes we make this year are being added to the baseline established last year, which is itself considered a proxy for our talent level on defense. Another way of looking at the situation — however — is that removing a negative (i.e., Slowik’s scheme) is like adding a positive. In other words, getting rid of Slowik’s scheme eliminates a depressing influence on our team’s defensive performance, one that LED to that historically bad defensive performance. We actually would have been better on defense without the ill-considered Slowik scheme and the rag tag group of veteran castoffs we’d accumulated.

REGRESSION TO THE MEAN

Defensive units often respond quickly to ‘positive’ changes so the turn-around from bad to good (or at least decent) can be quick. Mired in the statistical analysis (or inextricably intertwined) is the fact that bad things happen for a reason. Dysfunctional teams tend repeat their mistakes, as coaches are hired and fired and schemes are changed, all of which is disruptive and fails to adequately address the problem — typically.

The myriad organizational problems that dysfunctional organizations suffer from accompany (statistically) the scheme changes and personnel changes that appear in data. Therefore, much of quantitative analysis done on scheme change, etc., is a record of what bad teams do, and these ‘bad’ examples are lumped in with the more rare ‘good’ examples, because they’re categorized together since they share a common trait. Yes, indeed, most rebuilding efforts are unsuccessful, because the category of “rebuilding teams” is dominated by teams that failed and thus needed to be rebuilt.

SEEING THROUGH THE LENS OF TEAM BUILDING

It’s often better to see the rebuilding process in the same way as one would look at any other type of organization. Rather than focus on the ‘bottom line’ that’s an end-product, look instead to all the little things. Dysfunctional organizations aren’t produced overnight, moreover, organizational problems often breed other problems, so the many ‘culture changing’ little steps that are introduced by a new management may appear insignificant initially but they usually contribute to the bottom line eventually.

The point is to NOT worry about the bottom line of wins/losses but instead focus on process. Wins & losses are what is produced after you do everything else that goes into playing football.

The MSM’s RW is that — once again! — changing the Bronco’s culture, and certain aspects of the offense, too, was a big mistake. There’s an "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ maxim being employed here, and there’s also considerable resistance in the fan-base to change. But just look at what the MSM’s RW is saying here. What they’re saying is that there weren’t any problems with team’s culture and organization so you shouldn’t fix anything. Actually, Shanahan was a marvelous game coach and a poor general manager. Many of us here believe that THAT WAS the problem! All one has to do is look at the How the Broncos were Built section of the media guide to see — quite graphically — how bad we were at team building. Here’s who we have left from before 2006 — Ben Hamilton and D. J. Williams. You can also include Champ Bailey, since he was acquired in a trade for Clinton Portis, but THREE players is not a successful team building effort.

RE-EVALUATING

Much of what we’ve come to believe represents a distorted picture of the Broncos. This is even more true when it comes to the MSM’s RW. I, too, believed many of the things I’ve mentioned, such as keeping things the same, but I didn’t cling to those beliefs after I had the chance to analyze the new staff’s moves. What’s apparent about much of the MSM’s RW is how little thought went into it. And this isn’t surprising considering how few credible print journalists there are nowadays and the media’s tendency to use conflict to draw interest.

Approximately one year ago today, I commented in a post here at MHR about the Broncos’ failure to successfully engage in a team building effort. What may not have been apparent to many people is how that failure at team building would eventually translate into on-the-field results. The strange thing at this point is that much of the recent success (a half full glass terminological phrasing) is due to the fact that our draft drought has ended and we’ve been acquiring talent over the course of the last 3 years. We’ve acquired enormous amounts of talent recently and this is part of the story behind why we’ve been so good/bad. The MSM’s usual narrative is that our talent level is the problem, and so the solution MUST BE the infusion of more talent. Failing to add a generous portion of (usually young) talent is likened to completely misunderstanding the team building process.

However, I would say that it’s the MSM that’s missed the boat here. Team building is first and foremost a careful process. You don’t engage in a willy nilly process of collecting whatever talent is available and throw them together and then hope that somehow a team is formed, yet most of the MSM’s RW explicitly says that we should do exactly that. Furthermore, there’s a limit to how much young talent you can bring in, since many young players of an equal talent/experiential level don’t equate to a single competent veteran. Again, the MSM’s RW is that the high number of merely competent (but high character) veterans we brought in were an insufficient solution — thus missing the point. As I pointed out earlier, we DON’T HAVE ANY VETERANS! Not unless you’re speaking of Champ, DJ and Hamilton, or any of the other vets acquired in recent times, so acquiring high character, low cost vets was the only good solution to the problem. We could have overspent on a single player, such as Haynesworth, but we added to a greater number of positions instead.

Even though I could go on (and on) I want to wrap this up. Much of the negative coverage of the Bronco’s recent team building efforts has been the result of a failure to understand what wasn’t being done in terms of team building and thus misses the nature of our problems. We’re both younger and more talented than the MSM recognizes, and the veteran talent we shed in the offseason was part of the problem. It’s not that all of them were terrible. The problem was that there was no plan behind their acquisition, and many of them were also “street veterans” who collectively amounted to a disaster. The fact that many of the new FA vets are equally old misses the point. Nearly all of them, almost without exception, were still wanted by their original team. They may resemble the players we released as far as their superficial aspects but they’re somewhat different than the castoffs we acquired in the last two years. Finally, since we’re so young as a team we’re still behind in terms of development. Much of this younger talent will need to learn through more playing time, but the most obvious fact about this is that we will almost certainly improve and continue to improve as time goes by.