Elway's drafts have been shit.

Denver is a free agency team.
[Reply]

By all means, move up and take another Paxton Lynch

:-)
[Reply]

No he actually knows how to scout players, which was the consensus about him when he came here. Dorsey's scouting ability was held in very high regard by the Packers. He didn't get lucky.

You don't get lucky on players when you're constantly hitting on them every year.
[Reply]

Like how Elway lucked into the only truely great player he's drafted because he had a top 5 pick?

:-)
[Reply]

He very easily could've drafted Nick Fairley, Gabbert, or Locker considering the needs Denver had that year. But he didn't. He drafted the Super Bowl MVP.
[Reply]

You are the definition of a worthless maggot...

I honestly don't know how you can wake up in the morning and not off yourself...

You are so blindly deluded that I almost question your sanity
[Reply]

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports the Broncos are "exploring" trading up on Thursday evening.

Desperate to improve the Broncos' offensive line, GM John Elway must believe his player might not be there at No. 20. In one of the weakest tackle classes in years, if not ever, Alabama's Cam Robinson is one of the top names available. Utah's Garett Bolles is another name to monitor.
[Reply]

Watching the Broncos trade up for an OT will be fucking hilarious
[Reply]

You wouldn't be able to slap the smile off my face.
[Reply]

:-)


[Reply]

I'll roll with whatever they decide to do, this is what they're paid to know and if they want a certain player - go get him.

None of us flinging shit around on a fan site has any real clue, we're just kicking dust in each other's faces.
[Reply]

Among teams #Broncos have talked to about trading up are #Titans at No. 5. Might be too rich to go that high, but possible.

— Jason Cole (@JasonColeBR) April 27, 2017

They're not going to draft a tackle at #5! :-)
[Reply]

No, it'll be for McCaffrey. A running back.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

I don't see Elway trading up that high. It just nice to know that the LT rumors aren't true.
[Reply]