Broncos offer Detriot the Kitchen sink for #2

[FreeTedWilliams]

From KFFL:
Broncos | Team makes offers for second overall pick
Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:12:52 -0700

Nicholas Cotsonika, of the Detroit Free Press, reports the Denver Broncos have made two offers to the Detroit Lions involving the the second overall pick, according to the Denver Post. The first offer included LB Al Wilson and the Broncos' first-round pick. The second offer involved the Broncos' first-, second- and third-round picks in the 2007 NFL Draft, as well as their first-round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft.

That's picks 21, 56, 86,and a #1 next year (Denver owns Washington's 3rd round pick (70), but I'm assuming that they would trade their own 3rd rd pick which is 86. If I'm Detriot, I take this trade in a heartbeat. Obviously the Broncos are targeting Calvin Johnson. I'm sure that the trade would not be consumated until after the Raider's pick, but it would be a tough one to turn down. I wonder what the Broncos would do if Detroit said that the trade has to be done before the draft? That's a big gamble for Dnever either way.

If they did it, Detroit would own picks 21, 34, 56, 66, & 86 plus Denver's #1 next year (and they will be starting basically a rookie QB, in a division where they have to play San Diego twice, I'd take it!

 

[SamBamsFan]

Didn't Denver release Wilson?

 

[Flying Fungi]

Didn't Denver release Wilson?

yes, but Shanahan had to see if Matt Millen really was THAT stupid

apparently he's only very stupid and not wicked stupid...

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

yes, but Shanahan had to see if Matt Millen really was THAT stupid

apparently he's only very stupid and not wicked stupid...

They only Officially waived him on the 24th..

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/10033511

But Millen is holding out for John Elway too.

I wonder if Millen is smart enough to take this trade? Of course instead of just one pick to screw up, he would have 7! That just might be too much presser for him.

 

[dryheat44]

Millen can't make this trade, I don't care how many additional picks he gets. If your first pick is #21, you're not going to get the guy you covet (Gaines Adams).

The only way this works as if Denver and Detroit enlist the help of a third team, like Washington. Then Detroit trades #2 to Denver for #26, #56, & #86 and the first next year (probably late in the round). Detroit then flips the first in 2008, #26, and another pick to Washington for the #5 pick.

 

[Irish Hooligan]

yes, but Shanahan had to see if Matt Millen really was THAT stupid

apparently he's only very stupid and not wicked stupid...

 

[Oswlek]

Millen can't make this trade, I don't care how many additional picks he gets. If your first pick is #21, you're not going to get the guy you covet (Gaines Adams).

The only way this works as if Denver and Detroit enlist the help of a third team, like Washington. Then Detroit trades #2 to Denver for #26, #56, & #86 and the first next year (probably late in the round). Detroit then flips the first in 2008, #26, and another pick to Washington for the #5 pick.

I don't care who you covet. That is complete layup of a deal for a team with holes all over the place and it would be a big mistake to pass it up.

 

[patchick]

I don't care who you covet. That is complete layup of a deal for a team with holes all over the place and it would be a big mistake to pass it up.

I tend to agree. Adams just isn't big enough to plug all the holes on that team. Trading his rights for, say, Jamaal Anderson AND Daymeion Hughes AND Kevin Kolb AND a 2008 #1 looks pretty good to me.

 

[dryheat44]

I tend to agree. Adams just isn't big enough to plug all the holes on that team. Trading his rights for, say, Jamaal Anderson AND Daymeion Hughes AND Kevin Kolb AND a 2008 #1 looks pretty good to me.

That's the same mentality that leads to trades such as LaDanian Tomlinson for Heath Evans, Kelley Washington, Eric Alexander, and Russ Hochstein. Trade a great player to fill four holes on the roster.

More does not always equal better. There's a reason why analysts tend to evalute trades based on who gets the better player. Trading from #2 to #5 and netting an extra pick is a great idea. Trading #2 to net #10, #16, and #48 is a pretty good idea. Trading #2 to net #26, #56, #86, and future #26 is a terrible idea. I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. (Of course, we need to assume that players are going to live up to their draft spot).

 

[bakes781]

Hershel Walker comes to mind.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Two ways to think about this, if Detriot is passing on a QB at #2.

1.) If Detriot has a player targeted, but that player is not worthy of the second overall pick, but is a top 5 or 6 pick, then they should not trade with Denver.

2.) If Detriot does not have a player targeted, but wants depth at several positions, then they should wring every last draft pick they can out of Denver and hope that some QB in this draft, not named Russell or Quinn can be their QB of the future and would be available at #26 or #56.

 

[theONLYJerseypatsfan]

I would love to see this trade happen and then johnson breaks his femur during training camp.....stupid donkeys

 

[theONLYJerseypatsfan]

You can get all the receivers you want, with Jay Cutler (Who I cant stand and couldnt stand all through college) throwing at them they are nothing but window dressings!

 

[Seymour93]

That's the same mentality that leads to trades such as LaDanian Tomlinson for Heath Evans, Kelley Washington, Eric Alexander, and Russ Hochstein. Trade a great player to fill four holes on the roster.

Not really. Gaines Adams is just as likely to turn into the next Jamal Reynolds than he is to become the next Robert Porcher. With three extra picks you're much more likely to get it right.

 

[Kontradiction]

Has anybody given one thought to the fact that IF CJ blows his knee out, he is not the same receiver? That 4.3 speed is gone. No one player is worth an entire draft. I would also laugh (considering my hate for the Broncos) if Detroit made them do it now and Oakland takes Johnson with the first overall pick.

 

[Fixit]

Take the deal and run, Milly. As someone else pointed out, you'd have beaucoup picks to try and trade back up to get the guy you wanted in the first place. This is a no-brainer.

Then again, what happens when a no-brainer is presented to a guy with no brain? Is it like a double negative? Will Millen respond with "Grape!" or start making shadow puppets? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Kdo5]

Wow the second deal is laughable. If I was Detroit I'd do it in a second.

 

[cstjohn17]

That's the same mentality that leads to trades such as LaDanian Tomlinson for Heath Evans, Kelley Washington, Eric Alexander, and Russ Hochstein. Trade a great player to fill four holes on the roster.

More does not always equal better. There's a reason why analysts tend to evalute trades based on who gets the better player. Trading from #2 to #5 and netting an extra pick is a great idea. Trading #2 to net #10, #16, and #48 is a pretty good idea. Trading #2 to net #26, #56, #86, and future #26 is a terrible idea. I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. (Of course, we need to assume that players are going to live up to their draft spot).

I disagree, unless it is a John Elway, Carson Palmer or another cannot miss player at a premium position (not WR) then I would go for productive cheap quantity over a single very expensive prospect.

Not extensive research by any stretch, but this article summarizes the cost/benefit of a top 5 pick.

Four day 1 picks can build a lot of depth, and on the Lions likely produce at least 2 starters. The total cost of these players would be much less than the contract of the #2 overall.

Leaving Hochsteein and Alexander out of the equation, would you trade Maroney, Wilfork, Hobbs and David Thomas for any WR in the NFL? Lots of holes in the roster if you do.

 

[dryheat44]

I disagree, unless it is a John Elway, Carson Palmer or another cannot miss player at a premium position (not WR) then I would go for productive cheap quantity over a single very expensive prospect.

Not extensive research by any stretch, but this article summarizes the cost/benefit of a top 5 pick.

Four day 1 picks can build a lot of depth, and on the Lions likely produce at least 2 starters. The total cost of these players would be much less than the contract of the #2 overall.

Leaving Hochsteein and Alexander out of the equation, would you trade Maroney, Wilfork, Hobbs and David Thomas for any WR in the NFL? Lots of holes in the roster if you do.

Well the problem is that we're not dealing with draft picks, we're dealing with known quantities. The other problem is that we're comparing the Lions "brain" trust with the Patriots brain trust. But if I'm going to trade #2, I'd much rather have #5 and #18 than have #26, 56, 86, and a late first rounder next year, regardless of what the draft chart says.

Doesn't this match up with what many of us have been saying the Patriots should do? That since there are 18(?) first round grades that we should trade up. I mean, we can keep trading down and trading down and finally end up with 32 sixth rounders and 32 seventh rounders . Doesn't mean we should, even though chances are a few of those 64 players will be solid pros.

 

[Real World]

Millen can't make this trade, I don't care how many additional picks he gets. If your first pick is #21, you're not going to get the guy you covet (Gaines Adams).

The only way this works as if Denver and Detroit enlist the help of a third team, like Washington. Then Detroit trades #2 to Denver for #26, #56, & #86 and the first next year (probably late in the round). Detroit then flips the first in 2008, #26, and another pick to Washington for the #5 pick.

I agree, the trade blows for Detroit. You don't trade a silver dollar, #2 overall, for a dime #21, and a bunch of nickels. Even adding next years #1, which could be anywhere from #20-30, isn't wise for Detroit. Now, mixing in Washington like you mention is a good idea. Detroit has to get a pick inside #10 to start with. If they don't, they need quality picks, plus a quality player in return. Getting an established commodity lessens the risk of a recieving a late first.