Hawksalot4277
New member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
Polaris":32j7ihxf said:Hawksalot4277":32j7ihxf said:First, as far as home growing goes, your team drafted 17 of the 27 significant players that contribute to its success. Denver drafted 18 of the 28. That doesn't include kickers and long snappers, I didn't even look. I know we drafted both our kickers and the long snapper. I also think it should be noted that were it not for injuries, Denver's drafted contributor number would be higher (Walton, Harris, Miller, Moore), while if it weren't for injuries and suspensions, seattle's non-drafted contributor number would be higher (Rice, Harvin, Browner).
That's slanted and you know it. Consider the LOB. All but one of them were third day draft picks save Earl Thomas (who was also drafted....with Denver's pick I might add). The same applies to our LB core. Also consider that while we've dipped a bit into high-end free agency (esp to improve the pass rush), the bulk of Seattle's free agent contributers were undrafted free agents which skews your numbers.
So, yes, this is a team built from the ground up with cheap drafted talent. Denver's by and large isn't.
7-9 without Peyton? I can't admit that. Who is the quarterback instead? Absolutely no way of knowing. I will give you this, the rest of the team constituted exactly as it is, Manning is most likely 3 wins better than anyone else we would have had. But that would have applied to last year too, which would have meant a higher pick this year, etc.
Well, Tebow was your QB the year before and IIRC you went 8-8 or close to it and barely won the AFCW. Tebow got worse not better until he left the NFL....so I think Denver being 7-9 without Peyton is an entirely fair estimate.
Again, though, I don't see what difference it makes. Is Denver supposed to apologize for the manner in which it has achieved success? We've come just as far as you have.
If you look back at my post, I said what Elway did worked. Doesn't sound like I'm asking for anything close to an apology. I do think Denver has about 1-2 years left before going off a cliff. If you can get a ring, I guess it's worth it. Pete and John are approaching it differently and I think I like that.
My numbers aren't skewed. The 10 contributors not drafted by Seattle played somewhere else before coming to Seattle. They may have been undrafted free agents, but they didn't start in Seattle.
And just because Tebow was there before Manning doesn't mean we would have kept him if we didn't get manning. And even if we did, HE didn't go 8-8 the year before, he was 7-4 in the regular season. And he how he played somewhere else has no bearing on how he MIGHT have played another year in Denver.
If you think Pete wouldn't trade a potential cliff two years from now for a ring right now you are crazy. Seattle TRIED to get Manning. So the way Pete is approaching it now is plan B. it obviously seems to be working, but it's still plan B. so don't go all Patriots fan on me and start declaring him a genius because a third round QB he added for depth and development turned out to be much beer than anyone thought, including him.