Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Denver may want to trade up for Fairly


jarhead

Recommended Posts

All the boards are predicting the Broncos trading up to get Fairley which would feel a large void.They are also saying Orton wants out if he will be playing behind Tebo.That would work fo me.

Our #1 pick to Denver. We get Orton, their first and 2nd round pick sounds good to me :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother is a Denver fan and he's been salivating at the chances of getting Fairley. Their DT position is lacking as well.

I wouldn't mind trading down, and then maybe seeing if we could trade down with Cinci to stock up some more picks. It all comes down to the info we have by the day of the draft though, so that can change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no way don't trade the #1 pick and lose a beast in fairely we need that postion filled he can come in and be an impact player from the start. sure we could get more picks but why would u want more picks when u can get a beast we have no good DT right now that can stop the run maybe thats becasue of the coaching or not but I say FAIRELY WILL BE NUMBER ONE PICK BY THE PANTHERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trade down with Denver for Orton, take Green at #2. that is an excellent draft.

why trade down yet again to stockpile low round picks for mediocre talent? you timid bro?

Agree.

Every team needs role players, but they need 2-3 stars on each side of the ball. Who are our stars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...