Shaun Rogers on Broncos' radar [Archive]

RiversSucks

02-23-2008, 12:40 AM

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_8339665

By Bill Williamson
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/22/2008 10:05:49 PM MST

INDIANAPOLIS — The Broncos are examining the possibility of pursuing super talented but often lackadaisical Detroit defensive tackle Shaun Rogers.

According to two sources close to the situation, Denver is in the exploration process of looking at Rogers. Friday, Lions general manager Matt Millen said he would listen to deals for the seven-year veteran. Rogers has been seeking a trade, and at least a handful of teams are expected to be in play.

Denver has long been an admirer of Rogers, who had one of his better games last season against the Broncos. Denver is looking for defensive tackle help, which may be its greatest need, along with a safety.

It would likely cost a second- or third-round pick to get Rogers. Denver and Detroit hooked up for a trade last year, when the Broncos brought in cornerback Dré Bly for Tatum Bell and George Foster.

Rogers' agent, Kennard McGuire, is expected to be involved in any trade talks. He is also Bly's agent and was involved last year's deal.

McGuire had no comment on any deal involving Rogers.

Denver could potentially look at defensive tackle Rod Coleman, who was recently cut by Atlanta

MOtorboat

02-23-2008, 12:41 AM

I know everyone hates the "need" draft, but we "need" LT and DT...

Lonestar

02-23-2008, 01:09 AM

a second could work for me if he is not a cap buster.. The odds of a second coming in a starting day one are high..

Great DT's are hard to come by and a 7 year vet still should have alot of miles on him at least enough to get another one in the draft in couple of years to learn the ropes instead of like what happened to Thomas last season.

JONtheBRONCO

02-23-2008, 01:32 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5508/situational;_ylt=Aj6XGyUcVrLOHRzmU1HfgdP.uLYF

check it out

Timmy!

02-23-2008, 01:39 AM

I'd take Rogers over Coleman, but either one would be a very nice addition. We NEED DT help.

Requiem / The Dagda

02-23-2008, 01:44 AM

Rogers won't cost us a second rounder.

Malcontent players don't go for that high.

I could see Denver trading a future pick for the guy, but there's no way we only have one draft selection in the first three rounds.

If we did trade the second for Rogers, we better be trading DOWN, DOWN, DOWN and picking up more selections.

We can't go from #12 and wait until around #100 in the fourth round for our next selection. Not in this draft. Not with all our needs.

Trade down, get an extra second or third round pick with a day two choice. Send one of those picks for Rogers, then we'll still have ammo gained to spend on this nice talented draft.

shank

02-23-2008, 01:53 AM

dream, i like that plan a lot. :salute:

i'm confused from other threads, are you against picking up rogers?

gobroncsnv

02-23-2008, 02:03 AM

Doesn't this idea sound really familiar, like over the past several years before the last draft??? And if so, how's that workin' out for ya?

Maybe Rogers would be ok, but this is deja vu all over again.

Requiem / The Dagda

02-23-2008, 02:06 AM

shank

02-23-2008, 02:09 AM

I don't really want Rogers because he's a malcontent and would probably be another mistake in the long line of Broncos acquiring players who have serious attitude problems; but then again - Rogers just wants to win and I can see how being in Detroit forever can really dampen your spirits. (Like Bly)

On the flip side, he can help us win now and in the future. He's only 28 and has a great season last year. He has 5 quality years left in him I'd say, but I wouldn't expect that much.

Rogers is a good player, but at what cost? (Pick wise, financially, and risk wise.)

If Denver could trade down and get a few more selections and then trade a third or a mid-round pick that they have now for him; sure.

Think of it this way, we throw #42 at Rogers (which in this class is like a first rounder IMHO) and we sit from #12 to about #104 without another single selection, unless we were morons and traded more future picks.

I don't approve of that.

I'd approve of getting Rogers if we did it a smart way at the right price.

#42 is too much for him. Way too much.

couldn't agree more. i feel like i'm one of the guys who wants rogers more than many, and 42 is def too much to give up.

do you think the lions would go for any type of deal such as our 12 for their 15 and rogers? do you see something like this working out for both teams?

Requiem / The Dagda

02-23-2008, 02:16 AM

couldn't agree more. i feel like i'm one of the guys who wants rogers more than many, and 42 is def too much to give up.

do you think the lions would go for any type of deal such as our 12 for their 15 and rogers? do you see something like this working out for both teams?

I never even thought of that, but I'd take that deal in a heart beat. It'd work for us I'd say - I don't know about them. Is three spots really worth it?

Depends on who is there. We could have some leverage. Don't they need an OT?

*shrugs*

I'd do that trade, I don't know if they would.

Then after that, I'd trade down from #15 to about #25 and pick up a second and a fourth and have myself a cookie or two.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 02:26 AM

if we trade for rogers, look for foxworth to be part of the deal. . . they are in absolute desperate need of some solid cornerback play, and with foxworth and paymah both hitting RFA we may look to tender one of them and move the other while we can still get something for him. . . foxworth doesn't have prototypical size for a cover-2 corner, but he has shown that he's willing to come up and stick his nose in and make tackles-- remember the game (cincinnati, i think it was) a year ago where he had 14 tackles and collapsed in the locker room afterwards? he's a smart, versatile team player, and those are the kind of guys marinelli wants to build around. . . plus, he is young, but has a lot of experience for his age-- and they could really use someone who can contribute immediately, even if they do spend a high draft pick on the position as well. . . .

lex

02-23-2008, 02:33 AM

I don't really want Rogers because he's a malcontent and would probably be another mistake in the long line of Broncos acquiring players who have serious attitude problems; but then again - Rogers just wants to win and I can see how being in Detroit forever can really dampen your spirits. (Like Bly)

On the flip side, he can help us win now and in the future. He's only 28 and has a great season last year. He has 5 quality years left in him I'd say, but I wouldn't expect that much.

Rogers is a good player, but at what cost? (Pick wise, financially, and risk wise.)

If Denver could trade down and get a few more selections and then trade a third or a mid-round pick that they have now for him; sure.

Think of it this way, we throw #42 at Rogers (which in this class is like a first rounder IMHO) and we sit from #12 to about #104 without another single selection, unless we were morons and traded more future picks.

I don't approve of that.

I'd approve of getting Rogers if we did it a smart way at the right price.

#42 is too much for him. Way too much.

I agree...kind of. I would actually not mind acquiring him but on the condition that we hedge our bets by drafting someone. Basically, Rogers is worth a 4th. Dream is right about malcontents getting a second. This dude isnt too unlike Walker. A few weeks ago, it was reported they would cut Rogers and now he's worth a 2nd? Come on! Where do the get this. Giving up a 2nd for Rogers would be dumb. A 4th is an entirely different matter. Id rather sign Sopoaga and then draft Moore or Laws.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 03:05 AM

as to the questio of whether we SHOULD get rogers or not (academic, anyways), i can definitely see both sides of the argument. . .

PROS

he is an elite physical talent in his prime, at a position where we're desperate for help-- preferably someone who can help now. . . he's been pretty durable over the years, with '06 being the one noticeable exception. . . he's also a proven commodity. . . when he plays hard, he can be every bit as good as albert haynseworth, who was a DMVP candidate this year before he got hurt-- rogers can be that same kind of difference-maker, as we all saw when he almost single-handedly wrecked our entire offense this year. . .

he has enormous base strength, and can be close to immovable when he's fresh. . . he can control double-teams and force the action outside, or split them and be disruptive in the backfield. . . he's also a capable pass rusher who can crush smaller OLs with his bull rush and collapse the pocket. . . if he's playing at the top of his game, he also makes the rest of our defense that much better. . . he's a widebody who can keep our undersized LBs clean and allow them to flow to the ball instead of always having to fight their way through trash, and his presence and ability to draw the double would free up an awful lot of one-on-one situations for our young linemen. . . the presence of a DT of his caliber can have a trickle-down effect on the entire unit. . .

CONS

all that stuff is great-- IF he'll actually come in and do it on a regular basis. . . his reputation for giving inconsistent effort is well documented. . . you can always hope that a change of scenery will improve his attitude (who WOULDN'T want to get out of detroit?) ala randy moss this season, but it's nothing more than hope. . . most likely, conditioning is a big part of the problem, as he's a guy who has always struggled to control his weight. . . a smart team will set a weight limit and fine him if he exceeds it. . .

one significant worry is that he was suspended for four games in '06 due to violation of the performance-enhancing drug policy. . . one more slip-up would likely result in a year's suspension-- you'd hate to see him pull a sauerbrun and get canned for a year because his fat ass took some ephedra in the offseason. . . . :tsk: there were also reports that he pulled a gun at a strip club (what is it about the titty bars that makes these morons get violent?), although he was never formally charged with anything IIFC. . . .

ultimately, it's a high risk, high reward type of move. . . . if rogers comes in and consistently performs at the level he's capable of, he can vault us right back into the ranks of playoff contenders. . . unfortunately, history suggests that it isn't likely to happen. . . my bet is that if he's moved he will come out with a chip on his shouledr, at least initially. . . but can he sustain it? you'd have to hope that the team could put together a win streak early and keep him interested, because sometimes for guys who have gotten used to losing, winning can have it's own intrinsic motivational value. . . it kinda sucks that he's got three more years on his contract-- it's great if he plays like the stud that he can be, but i'd like it better if he were closer to a contract year. . . . not much you can do about it, though. . . .

for me, it really all comes down to the price. . . . if he can be had for reasonable compensation, i would take a deep breath and pull the trigger-- the guy is a douchebag, and i don't trust him to bring it full time, but there's no question that he is far superior talent-wise to pretty much anyone else we can bring in at this point. . . if we can work it so that we can bring him in and still maintain two 1st day picks (even if one of them is lower than what it is now), i would probably take the chance. . . . but if they think they're getting a 2nd for him straight up, i'd tell them to get bent. . . .

shank

02-23-2008, 03:13 AM

CONS

all that stuff is great-- IF he'll actually come in and do it on a regular basis. . . his reputation for giving inconsistent effort is well documented. . . you can always hope that a change of scenery will improve his attitude (who WOULDN'T want to get out of detroit?) ala randy moss this season, but it's nothing more than hope. . . most likely, conditioning is a big part of the problem, as he's a guy who has always struggled to control his weight. . . a smart team will set a weight limit and fine him if he exceeds it. . .

one significant worry is that he was suspended for four games in '06 due to violation of the performance-enhancing drug policy. . . one more slip-up would likely result in a year's suspension-- you'd hate to see him pull a sauerbrun and get canned for a year because his fat ass took some ephedra in the offseason. . . . :tsk: there were also reports that he pulled a gun at a strip club (what is it about the titty bars that makes these morons get violent?), although he was never formally charged with anything IIFC. . . .

for me, it really all comes down to the price. . . . if he can be had for reasonable compensation, i would take a deep breath and pull the trigger-- the guy is a douchebag, and i don't trust him to bring it full time, but there's no question that he is far superior talent-wise to pretty much anyone else we can bring in at this point. . . if we can work it so that we can bring him in and still maintain two 1st day picks (even if one of them is lower than what it is now), i would probably take the chance. . . . but if they think they're getting a 2nd for him straight up, i'd tell them to get bent. . . .

i actually hadn't heard about the substance incident or the strip club incident... i hate to say it, but even with those, our DT sitch is so bad that i still really want rogers on our team... but just like everyone else who doesn't wear a helmet in the bathtub, i only want him at the right price. a 2nd straight up is too much, but a third or equivelant value sounds like a reasonable risk considering our DTs as of right now.

and like you mentioned, i'd rather include foxworth (as great as he is as a leader, role model, and player) i just happen to like paymah more and i think foxworth has the higher value to another team because of his more extensive playing time.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 03:16 AM

shank

02-23-2008, 03:22 AM

we are talking about matt millen here, i wonder if there's any way we can sucker them into taking ian fold off our hands. . . .

seriously though, if shenanigans gives them the 2nd straight up, i will put mike shanahan = matt millen in my sig. . . .

if you believe in karma, then we can't give them less than a 2nd for rogers... (we DID get bly for two players that won't even be on the lions next season...)

but hopefully karma is a crock and we can put a bag over millen's head again!

gold for rogers straight up! you're not going to get anything better matt!:lol:

Stargazer

02-23-2008, 03:22 AM

Please I hope not. Because it would likely involve draft picks going to Detroit. Continue to build this team through the NFL draft.

Stargazer

02-23-2008, 03:28 AM

I am so tired of potential instant gratification. This team needs to build through the draft and find starters and quality backups. Denver needs a lot more young talent on both sides of the ball.

WARHORSE

02-23-2008, 07:59 AM

Larry Fitzgerald wont be in Arizona this year. Graves negotiated escalators into his contract that have sent his salary this year and next into the stratoshpere. Who gives up a contract that pays out 20 mil guaranteed, and then kicks in 32 mil over the last two years of a 6 yr contract? Fitzgerald is in total control, and unless they want to pay him 14+ million in salary this year and 17+ million next, they simply have to cut him. Cant trade him, cant play him. A cut is the only recourse. Parker is playing hardball, and its smart, cause Fitzgerald is going to cash in.

Cards, Fitzgerald not close to deal

Kent Somers
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 22, 2008 05:53 PM
INDIANAPOLIS - Contrary to its name, sometimes the most important thing about the NFL scouting combine is not evaluating college prospects.

That's the case this year for the Cardinals, whose most pressing need is to restructure receiver Larry Fitzgerald's contract to make it more salary-cap friendly over the next two years.

The Cardinals are believed to have made Fitzgerald's agent, Eugene Parker, a multiyear offer that would make Fitzgerald the highest paid receiver in the NFL.
http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gifhttp://gcirm.azcentral.gcion.com/RealMedia/.ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/0222cards.html/93187203/ArticleFlex_1/OasDefault/goldberg_osborne_targeted/60963.html/34363566623337313437626263373530?_RM_EMPTY_http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif

The two sides, however, appear no closer to a deal than they were before meeting here this week.

"We're looking for something that works for both parties, but we were told that he (Fitzgerald) was going to be a Cardinal this year no matter what and he's fine with that," Parker said Friday. "We're trying to find something that can work for both of us. We expect him to be a Cardinal one way or the other."

Fitzgerald, four years into his six-year rookie contract, achieved incentive clauses that will push his salary to $14.6 million in 2008 and $17.1 million in 2009. Even though the salary cap for each team is expected to rise $9 million, to $116 million this year, Cardinals officials say they can't accommodate Fitzgerald's salary and still have the space needed to attract free agents and re-sign players.

"We've made it clear that we're not in an advantageous position . . . if we don't get a restructuring on this deal," General Manager Rod Graves said.

Only 24, Fitzgerald has made the Pro Bowl twice in his four seasons, which kicked in millions of dollars worth of escalator clauses. He's due to make almost $32 million the next two years, so it will take a considerable amount of guaranteed money to entice Parker to cut a new deal.

Parker wouldn't talk about contract details but did acknowledge that he is seeking more than the $27.2 million in guarantees that Detroit receiver Calvin Johnson, the second pick in last year's draft, received in his six-year deal.

"Larry is a unique guy, a proven commodity now," Parker said. "He's not a draft guy that you hope can make it. He's already proven what he can do, so Calvin Johnson is not going to set our standards."

Like Parker, Graves declined to discuss contract specifics, but the two sides are believed to be far apart on both the length and worth of a new deal.

The Cardinals are trying to appeal to Fitzgerald's desire to play for a winner. It was no accident this week when Graves lauded defensive end Bertrand Berry for taking a $3 million pay cut.

"It speaks to the character of Bert and what some of our players are willing to do to see this team continually improve," Graves said.

After Berry's pay cut and the release this week of three players, the Cardinals are believed to be about $11 million under the salary cap. That's not enough room to re-sign outside linebacker Calvin Pace, a key unrestricted free agent, and to attract new players once free agency begins on Friday.

A new deal could help both parties, giving the Cardinals more cap room and guaranteeing Fitzgerald a considerable sum of money.

The Cardinals have dealt with Parker several times over the years, and he and Graves have a good relationship. But Parker has a history of using time as an advantage, if he thinks it can create more leverage. He doesn't seem eager to consummate a deal right away, although that could change quickly.

"Obviously, his contract is what it is," Parker said. "If he (Fitzgerald) has to play for it, he'll play for it. We're just trying to see if we can get there on a multiyear deal."

Meanwhile, Graves is continuing talks with Pace's agent, Pat Dye Jr. The two met for 2 1/2 hours Friday morning, but a new contract for Pace hinges on the Cardinals' ability to restructure Fitzgerald's deal.

"They like Calvin and would like to have him back, but they have a lot on their plate," Dye said. "The good news for them is Calvin likes it there. He enjoys being a part of what appears to be a resurgence."

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 08:36 AM

I'd rather have Rod Coleman as he could be had w/o giving up coveted draft picks. Draft Dre Moore in the 4th (or move into the 3rd) and let him rotate/learn. We would still have Foxxy to use in a deal down the road. I'd take Rogers, but for no more than a 4th.

Scarface

02-23-2008, 08:46 AM

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 08:52 AM

Still pissed we gave Warren away...

hamrob

02-23-2008, 11:01 AM

The snippit I liked in the Rogers article had to do with our very own Jay Cutler. The guy's a stud. "If you need me, ask me." We've got a keeper! I wonder if we have a shot at picking Bennett up in the mid to late rounds?

Here's the full link to the article:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_8339665

BOSSHOGG30

02-23-2008, 11:37 AM

The Broncos are reportedly contemplating trading for Lions DT Shaun Rogers.

Rogers is expected to be traded by the second day of free agency. The 6'4/345-pound Pro Bowler has been on the Broncos' radar for a while, and would fill a need next to Marcus Thomas. Alvin McKinley shouldn't be starting in 2008.
Source: Denver Post

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 11:43 AM

I wonder what we'd give up...hopefully Foxxy and a mid pick this year or next would be enough.

DenBronx

02-23-2008, 03:01 PM

if we could trade back pick up a late 1st and late 3rd or early 4th, then id say use the 3rd or 4th to bait rodgers. no one on our team is as good as rodgers. this would be a really essential pick up for us.

JONtheBRONCO

02-23-2008, 03:05 PM

I like Rogers, and would hope if he came here he would clean up his act and lose some weight. But I've also seen other players come into Denver and be the same player they were previously, like, I don't know, Javon "ME the big BABY" Walker. I wouldn't be angry if Rogers came in, as long as we got him at the right price, and didn't give up too much for him.

BOSSHOGG30

02-23-2008, 03:22 PM

I don't know that many DT Shaun Rogers size that don't have that lable of being lazy or taking plays off sometimes. Rogers is super talented and he would work super well next to Thomas.

shank

02-23-2008, 03:51 PM

I don't know that many DT Shaun Rogers size that don't have that lable of being lazy or taking plays off sometimes. Rogers is super talented and he would work super well next to Thomas.

i agree that the 'lazy' tag doesn't really mean much, but the fact that he won't stay under weight is an issue.

BOSSHOGG30

02-23-2008, 05:43 PM

Booth Newspapers reports the Lions would prefer to trade DT Shaun Rogers out of the NFC.

A source tells beat writer Tom Kowalski that two AFC clubs, both in the same division, have emerged as the "frontrunners" to acquire Rogers. We suspect the teams are the Raiders and the Broncos.
Source: MLive.com

BOSSHOGG30

02-23-2008, 05:44 PM

If the Raiders get Rogers... that means that Dorsey or Ellis may drop further down the draft boards..... either way we win.... Rogers or a better chance to move up and get Dorsey or Ellis.

RiversSucks

02-23-2008, 06:07 PM

If the Raiders get Rogers... that means that Dorsey or Ellis may drop further down the draft boards..... either way we win.... Rogers or a better chance to move up and get Dorsey or Ellis.

They may drop but we might not be able to snag them! So we could still lose...

Scarface

02-23-2008, 06:32 PM

It worries me that he couldn't play for Marinelli who's a d-line guy. That's a red flag for me. I want football guys with heart. I hope we don't get burned with this guy.

BOSSHOGG30

02-23-2008, 07:07 PM

It worries me that he couldn't play for Marinelli who's a d-line guy. That's a red flag for me. I want football guys with heart. I hope we don't get burned with this guy.

He had a good year... He was 2nd in the NFL in sacks for his position.

JONtheBRONCO

02-23-2008, 07:36 PM

The Broncos and Lions could cut a deal which includes,

Lions getting, #12, Foxy, and Gold OR #12, 4th, (Foxy, or Gold, or Walker)
Broncos get, #15 and Rogers

With #15 we could select, OT, LB, or RB (just for Boss).

dogfish

02-23-2008, 07:49 PM

With #15 we could select, OT, LB, or RB (just for Boss).

stewart or mendenhall in the 1st, cherilus, anthony collins or jerrod mayo in the 2nd-- sounds like a plan. . . .

Krugan

02-23-2008, 08:13 PM

Many people dont like Foxworth, although I dont see it, I can accept this without arguement. That being said any deal involving a young player who gives his all, all the time, for a player who is KNOWN for being a lazy and has some character issues outside the ordinary is far far to costly.

Not only would be creating another hole by moving Fox, but we could be adding to a long list of poor choices on the DLine, or a above average chance for another flop.

On the negative side, if he lives up to his name(at this point in his career), not only have we lost a solid contributor with character, but further added to our storied abitly to bring in 2nd hand turds. 3 draft spots dropped, quality player lost, no return. (remember im taking the negative side here)

#12 and Fox for #15 and Rogers just doesnt add up to me. Much less throwing in gold to the mix, like him or not.

Lonestar

02-23-2008, 08:19 PM

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 08:22 PM

Well...if it's between second round pix...Oakland's is better than ours. Oh well...Hello Rod Coleman.

Krugan

02-23-2008, 08:22 PM

Jr, I see your point, but the mentality of "just get something" isnt always the best thing to do.

I dont think Rogers is the answer here. It seems to me to be a quick fix attempt yet again.

Maybe im just being negative about it, but it just has a bad feel for me.

Lonestar

02-23-2008, 09:27 PM

underrated29

02-23-2008, 09:49 PM

I guess no one saw my old sig. It had us trading with det for rodgers and a 4th from them, if he meets x, then its a 7th.

For them to move up 3 slots and lose a player they are not thrilled about, they need to give up a pick aswell.

But that was in my old sig, and now i dont have enough room to keep it so now i have another one sorta.

SO before

we get
#15 rodgers and 4th or 7th.

they get
#12 and our 4th or 7th. (not our 1st 4th).

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 09:54 PM

why would they do that?

MOtorboat

02-23-2008, 09:57 PM

why would they do that?

Why would Denver do that, more specifically?

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 09:58 PM

Why would Denver do that, more specifically?

you wouldn't go back 3 spots in the draft and add Rogers to the roster? If we want LB, OT, RB or S, we can get whatever we want at 15...just like 12.

slim

02-23-2008, 10:00 PM

He had a good year... He was 2nd in the NFL in sacks for his position.

Because he was looking for a pay day. This guy is not the answer.

MOtorboat

02-23-2008, 10:01 PM

you wouldn't go back 3 spots in the draft and add Rogers to the roster? If we want LB, OT, RB or S, we can get whatever we want at 15...just like 12.

Sorry, but it's way too much imo for a guy who may be cut if there's no trade.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 10:02 PM

Because he was looking for a pay day. This guy is not the answer.

he's actually got three years left on his current contract. . . . he was a beast the first half of the season, but he mailed it in when they started to slump. . . .

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:02 PM

Because he was looking for a pay day. This guy is not the answer.

He was a stud long before this season. besides, if that was his reasoning he wouldn';t have gotten lax at the end...when he had a chance to lead his team to the playoffs. Now THAT woulda made him some $$$...oh and it's not even his contract year.

slim

02-23-2008, 10:05 PM

He was a stud long before this season. besides, if that was his reasoning he wouldn';t have gotten lax at the end...when he had a chance to lead his team to the playoffs. Now THAT woulda made him some $$$...oh and it's not even his contract year.

Well, he is notorious for taking plays off. I guess most big men are, to some extent. I just don't like the things I hear about him.

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:05 PM

Sorry, but it's way too much imo for a guy who may be cut if there's no trade.

moving back 3 meaningless spots? We picked the worst drfat in 5 years to be picking 12th. The needs we have are deep in this draft...except for DT which we have NO chance of landing a top prospect. Lions wanna hand us one and you don't wanna take him? I don't get it. Anyone we would take at 12...we could likely have at 15...or a very, VERY similar version. And the 15th pick costs less than the 12th.

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:06 PM

Well, he is notorious for taking plays off. I guess most big men are, to some extent. I just don't like the things I hear about him.

I don't disagree that he gets sloppy. As I've said, I prefer Rod Coleman. I just don't think he played well for the $$.

slim

02-23-2008, 10:06 PM

he's actually got three years left on his current contract. . . . he was a beast the first half of the season, but he mailed it in when they started to slump. . . .

Right, that last part is something that has been said about him many times. Is that really kind of guy we want?

Watchthemiddle

02-23-2008, 10:06 PM

Well, he is notorious for taking plays off. I guess most big men are, to some extent. I just don't like the things I hear about him.

Can anyone say "Big Money"?????

dogfish

02-23-2008, 10:19 PM

Right, that last part is something that has been said about him many times. Is that really kind of guy we want?

well, the unfortunate truth is that shaun rogers giving 50% effort is still better than alvin mckinley giving 100% effort-- let alone josh mallard or kenny peterson. . . . :frusty:

like i said earlier in the tread, to me it really depends on the asking price-- i certainly wouldn't sell the farm to get him, but anyone who watched our game against them this past season should know that he's very capable of helping us in an area where we need it badly. . . . assuming that we're not going to get dorsey or ellis, our options for improving what may be the weakest spot on the team (it's either that or OT) aren't exactly limitless. . . and even if we want to draft a top DT, balmer and simms come with the exact same questions regarding effort-- neither of them did shit until the year before the draft, when money was on the line. . . will they really bring it full bore once they get paid? it's anybody's guess. . .

DT is one of the hardest spots to fill with top-notch talent-- at some point you've gotta take a chance on somebody. . . . honestly i'm not wild about the idea of getting rogers (i would have preferred corey williams), but in some ways i feel more comfortable with a known commodity than a rookie. . . it's a risk either way, but i sure as hell prefer bringing in rogers at the right price to entering next season with the stiffs we've got, and hoping that marcus thomas turns into a world beater. . . .

meh. . . i can see both sides of the debate, and i think both have some legitimate points. . . in the end, it doesn't matter what we think anyways-- it's already been reported that we're trying to get him. . . .

shank

02-23-2008, 10:22 PM

Sorry, but it's way too much imo for a guy who may be cut if there's no trade.

there WILL be a trade for rogers. he will not get cut. even as a malcontent they are 'asking' for a 2nd and will probably get somehting close to that from SOMEONE... even if the most anyone will offer is a 4th, the lions take it...

moving back 3 meaningless spots? We picked the worst drfat in 5 years to be picking 12th. The needs we have are deep in this draft...except for DT which we have NO chance of landing a top prospect. Lions wanna hand us one and you don't wanna take him? I don't get it. Anyone we would take at 12...we could likely have at 15...or a very, VERY similar version. And the 15th pick costs less than the 12th.

i can easily see motivation for this on our end, i just don't see any real motivation for the lions to move up 3 spots. the value works out pretty well, i just think the same thing could be said about the lions picking at 12..

dogfish

02-23-2008, 10:23 PM

Can anyone say "Big Money"?????

i really don't think that's a legit comparison-- whether he takes plays off or not, rogers is so much better than warren it's not even funny. . . . they may have the same attitude, but rogers is on a different level in terms of talent and performance. . .

lex

02-23-2008, 10:29 PM

i really don't think that's a legit comparison-- whether he takes plays off or not, rogers is so much better than warren it's not even funny. . . . they may have the same attitude, but rogers is on a different level in terms of talent and performance. . .

Perhaps when he plays well but what about when he isnt playing as well, whether its effort or whatever?

shank

02-23-2008, 10:30 PM

Perhaps when he plays well but what about when he isnt playing as well, whether its effort or whatever?

then he's still better than any of our other DTs :lol:

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:36 PM

then he's still better than any of our other DTs :lol:

So is Rod Coleman.

lex

02-23-2008, 10:39 PM

then he's still better than any of our other DTs :lol:

True but will he be better than, say, Trevor Laws who is a high effort guy? Will he be better than Sopoaga? If he doesnt play at his top level all the time, the concept of value comes into play. Why pay more for a guy whose best is A+ but the other half of the time he's a C when you can have a guy for half as much who consistently plays as a B or a B+.

With Rogers we're not only paying a sizeable salary for sporadic play, but we're also surrendering our ability to hedge our bets by drafting a quality DT.

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:46 PM

[QUOTE=lex;151152]True but will he be better than, say, Trevor Laws who is a high effort guy? Will he be better than Sopoaga? QUOTE]

Yes and yes.

lex

02-23-2008, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=lex;151152]True but will he be better than, say, Trevor Laws who is a high effort guy? Will he be better than Sopoaga? QUOTE]

Yes and yes.

Even when he isnt in top form?

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE=SmilinAssasSin27;151157]

Even when he isnt in top form?

If he's completely flopping...Laws may be better...maybe. Rogers is THAT good. If ya watched him play v Denver last year, you have to agree he is an impact player. Even when he is playing half ass, he may still be better than Laws.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 10:51 PM

Perhaps when he plays well but what about when he isnt playing as well, whether its effort or whatever?

then he's still better than any of our other DTs :lol:

yep-- that's the sad thruth of the matter. . . .

smilin', i wouldn't mind going after coleman at all, but i do have to say that IMO rogers is a much better fit for what we really need. . . . coleman is a pure three-technique-- he's considerably better than mckinley, and much more proven than thomas (although i expect good things from marcus this year), but he's still a guy in the same mold. . . . he would be a real boost to our interior pass rush, and he's adequate at the point of attack for a 6'2" 300 lb. DT, but i don't see him as a guy who's going to make any significant improvement to our run efense. . . when rogers is fresh he can reset the LOS pretty much single-handedly, and still rush the passer. . . he's also two-and-a-half years younger than coleman. . . . coleman is easily the better character guy, but there's little doubt in my mind which of them would have the greater overall impact on our D. . . . maybe we can make significant strides in run defense by switching to a one-gap scheme and letting our guys attack and try to disrupt rushing lanes in the backfield, by getting better LBs, by run-blitzing heavily, etc etc. . . . but IMO none of that stuff is going to bring the kind of improvement getting a quality one-technique DT would. . . and i would have no problem seeing rogers used primarily as a two-down player, and letting mckinley replace him in obvious passing situations, or even crowder (or ekuban if he re-signs). . .

lex

02-23-2008, 10:55 PM

[QUOTE=lex;151158]

If he's completely flopping...Laws may be better...maybe. Rogers is THAT good. If ya watched him play v Denver last year, you have to agree he is an impact player. Even when he is playing half ass, he may still be better than Laws.

Id be reluctant to say that considering Laws might be better than what you think and also he will be considerably cheaper.

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 11:03 PM

yep-- that's the sad thruth of the matter. . . .

smilin', i wouldn't mind going after coleman at all, but i do have to say that IMO rogers is a much better fit for what we really need. . . . coleman is a pure three-technique-- he's considerably better than mckinley, and much more proven than thomas (although i expect good things from marcus this year), but he's still a guy in the same mold. . . . he would be a real boost to our interior pass rush, and he's adequate at the point of attack for a 6'2" 300 lb. DT, but i don't see him as a guy who's going to make any significant improvement to our run efense. . . when rogers is fresh he can reset the LOS pretty much single-handedly, and still rush the passer. . . he's also two-and-a-half years younger than coleman. . . . coleman is easily the better character guy, but there's little doubt in my mind which of them would have the greater overall impact on our D. . . . maybe we can make significant strides in run defense by switching to a one-gap scheme and letting our guys attack and try to disrupt rushing lanes in the backfield, by getting better LBs, by run-blitzing heavily, etc etc. . . . but IMO none of that stuff is going to bring the kind of improvement getting a quality one-technique DT would. . . and i would have no problem seeing rogers used primarily as a two-down player, and letting mckinley replace him in obvious passing situations, or even crowder (or ekuban if he re-signs). . .

Both would be very good additions for 2-3 years...and I still want to draft a DT. The issue w/ Rogers is that he would cost a draft pick, while Coleman would simply be a FA acquisition. I don't want Shanny to start tossing draft pix out like candy at Halloween. the Draft is how we need to rebuild.

SmilinAssasSin27

02-23-2008, 11:04 PM

[QUOTE=SmilinAssasSin27;151161]

Id be reluctant to say that considering Laws might be better than what you think and also he will be considerably cheaper.

It has more to do w/ how good Rogers IS than how good Laws MAY be...cuz he wasn't that impressive the handful of times I saw him in realtime play for ND.

shank

02-23-2008, 11:05 PM

[QUOTE=SmilinAssasSin27;151161]

Id be reluctant to say that considering Laws might be better than what you think and also he will be considerably cheaper.

trade down and let the extra pick allow us to spend another on a DT. *crosses fingers*

lex

02-23-2008, 11:12 PM

[QUOTE=lex;151168]

trade down and let the extra pick allow us to spend another on a DT. *crosses fingers*

Trade down with our first or 2nd? Becuase wed have to be at the end of the second and the end of the third for the points to work. Ideally it would be best to trade to the mid or top of the third. I actually think Foxworth to Miami along with a 3rd next year, might work.

dogfish

02-23-2008, 11:17 PM

Both would be very good additions for 2-3 years...and I still want to draft a DT. The issue w/ Rogers is that he would cost a draft pick, while Coleman would simply be a FA acquisition. I don't want Shanny to start tossing draft pix out like candy at Halloween. the Draft is how we need to rebuild.

i agree with that completely, which is why the idea of trading 12 for 15 appeals to me. . . they may not be interested unless they want a shot at clady, but if they are i would do it-- even if we have to throw in a 2nd day pick, or a player (take ian fold, please!). . . .

i won't lie though, i'm very concerned that shenanigans will offer them our 2nd straight up. . . i can EASILY see him doing that, going after a WR (we're reported to be interested in bryant johnson) and possibly an OT in free agency, and drafting either a RB or LB at # 12-- or maybe looking to trade down from 12 to recoup a second day one pick. . . .

Lonestar

02-23-2008, 11:20 PM

Because he was looking for a pay day. This guy is not the answer.

He is already making good money

2001 209000.00
2002 300000.00
2003 389000.00
2004 455000.00
2005 650000.00
2006 850000.00
2007 1500000.00
2008 4250000.00
2009 5250000.00
2010 7000000.00

http://www.nflpa.org/Resources/

Shaun $ 1,500,000 $ 0 $ 4,920 $ 1,504,920 $ 3,682,286 DT

Lonestar

02-23-2008, 11:22 PM

moving back 3 meaningless spots? We picked the worst drfat in 5 years to be picking 12th. The needs we have are deep in this draft...except for DT which we have NO chance of landing a top prospect. Lions wanna hand us one and you don't wanna take him? I don't get it. Anyone we would take at 12...we could likely have at 15...or a very, VERY similar version. And the 15th pick costs less than the 12th.

We could have very easily been at 9 had we not won two meaningless games.. Mikey trying to show his balls..

RiversSucks

02-23-2008, 11:35 PM

We could have very easily been at 9 had we not won two meaningless games.. Mikey trying to show his balls..

Maybe the players wanted to win those games? You play to win the game not play the game for you can lose and get a better draft position.

topscribe

02-24-2008, 12:06 AM

We could have very easily been at 9 had we not won
two meaningless games.. Mikey trying to show his balls..

No matter what the situation is, you play a game to win.

Maybe we had mixed emotions about it, but that is the way it is.

-----

Lonestar

02-24-2008, 12:17 AM

No matter what the situation is, you play a game to win.

Maybe we had mixed emotions about it, but that is the way it is.

-----

Or you evaluate personnel to see who stay and who goes..

Right now we have a huge controversy at LT not knowing if Harris can play there or not..

Lepsis was not getting it done it would have been a perfect time to find out if we really need to use a day one choice or not..

We won at least two meaningless games and accomplished nothing besides a Small dose of pride and Marshalls records.. past that NADA..

If you put in second teamers and win that is OK, but he has a responsibility to find out what is needed for next year..

dogfish

02-24-2008, 12:24 AM

Or you evaluate personnel to see who stay and who goes..

Right now we have a huge controversy at LT not knowing if Harris can play there or not..

Lepsis was not getting it done it would have been a perfect time to find out if we really need to use a day one choice or not..

We won at least two meaningless games and accomplished nothing besides a Small dose of pride and Marshalls records.. past that NADA..

If you put in second teamers and win that is OK, but he has a responsibility to find out what is needed for next year..

good post, JR. . . . i don't think anyone is suggesting that we should have tanked that last game, but playing harris once we were eliminated from the playoff picture would have been an awfully smart decision. . .

RiversSucks

02-24-2008, 12:39 AM

good post, JR. . . . i don't think anyone is suggesting that we should have tanked that last game, but playing harris once we were eliminated from the playoff picture would have been an awfully smart decision. . .

but what if he had gotten blown up on one play and the defender sacks Cutler in an awkward position then Cutler gets badly injured. Then what? everyone blames shanny for playing harris

http://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_shrug.gif

Lonestar

02-24-2008, 12:43 AM

good post, JR. . . . i don't think anyone is suggesting that we should have tanked that last game, but playing harris once we were eliminated from the playoff picture would have been an awfully smart decision. . .

thanks for getting the drift that the old wise one did not..

We had a lot of options to do to look to next year.. there was no one that was not a blind homer that would thought getting into the playoffs would have accomplished a thing.. other than another playoff ass kicking..

now we now squat about safety back up CB's. the other DE's and DT's. Young, Hall and Bell and well as the other "FB's"

TE we have no concerns about but the OLINE really concerns me who of the players should be kept although many had to play because we were down to no reserves.

About the only player that got time on the field was Windborn whom impressed me with his speed and hitting for a guy his size..

Scarface

02-24-2008, 12:45 AM

He had a good year... He was 2nd in the NFL in sacks for his position.

Stats aren't everything. He had a disappointing year.

Lonestar

02-24-2008, 12:46 AM

RiversSucks

02-24-2008, 12:57 AM

So we what till next year to have it happen? Only then find out after we get do not draft anyone good?

Those games are what back up QB's are for..

No we wait 'till preseason and until he learns more

:D

shank

02-24-2008, 01:09 AM

So we what till next year to have it happen? Only then find out after we get do not draft anyone good?

Those games are what back up QB's are for..

i don't disagree with you jr, but i would go as far as to guess that shanny thinks he knows what he has in harris and knew what direction he would need to take this offseason with regards to him. it sucks to think that he might not have trusted harris to protect jays blindside for a few games, but if that's how he felt, i'd rather he protect jay and do what needs to be done in the offseason.

(i hope that's not what happened really, i guess i'm playing devil's advocate a bit here.)

Lonestar

02-24-2008, 01:31 AM

i don't disagree with you jr, but i would go as far as to guess that shanny thinks he knows what he has in harris and knew what direction he would need to take this offseason with regards to him. it sucks to think that he might not have trusted harris to protect jays blindside for a few games, but if that's how he felt, i'd rather he protect jay and do what needs to be done in the offseason.

(i hope that's not what happened really, i guess i'm playing devil's advocate a bit here.)

Well we all know how most of mikeys DAFT choice have turned out don't we..

I'm just hoping that the classes of 2006-07 have turned his luck around.. prior to that he sucked on day one..

dogfish

02-24-2008, 01:48 AM

but what if he had gotten blown up on one play and the defender sacks Cutler in an awkward position then Cutler gets badly injured. Then what? everyone blames shanny for playing harris

http://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_shrug.gif

So we what till next year to have it happen? Only then find out after we do not draft anyone good?

exactly! if he sucks so bad that he can't keep the QB healthy, it's better to find out BEFORE you start a new season with him as the top option at OLT, and it's too late to find a quality option elsewhere. . . . if he can't keep jay from getting hurt for a game or two, why the hell did we draft him in the 3rd round anyways? :noidea:

besides, every game a young player gets under his belt translates to that much less of a learning curve. . . if you know lepsis isn't getting it done anymore, why not let the young guy take some lumps and get some of his dumb mistakes out of the way when the games don't matter anyways?

it's shanahan's job to put the best possible group of players together and get them ready to go-- he doesn't need to be making decisions based on what fans might say on the internet!

atwater27

02-24-2008, 04:22 AM

Report: Lions to deal DT Rogers within a week

NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports the Lions will trade DT Shaun Rogers within the next week.

Trades can't be executed until the free agency period begins on February 29. Schefter says at least four teams have shown strong interest in Rogers, whose skill set compares favorably to both Glenn Dorsey and Sedrick Ellis. Rogers has his ups and downs, but most premier interior linemen do. The Lions should be able to get at least a second-round pick for the 28-year-old. Feb. 22 - 7:24 pm et
from rotoworld

lex

02-24-2008, 04:25 AM

atwater27

02-24-2008, 04:27 AM

In this DT market, he most certainly is. Besides QB, it is the premier position in the league. There are very few dominating DT's in the league, they command a premium.

lex

02-24-2008, 04:31 AM

In this DT market, he most certainly is. Besides QB, it is the premier position in the league. There are very few dominating DT's in the league, they command a premium.

It was actually reported that they were going to cut him. If he is so dominant, why are they getting rid of him?

atwater27

02-24-2008, 04:34 AM

You do understand Matt Millen is in charge over there, right?

lex

02-24-2008, 04:36 AM

You do understand Matt Millen is in charge over there, right?

Thats the best you can come up with? Actually, Ive come across several Detroit fans who arent all that sad to see him go. So getting back to what I had asked you. If he is so dominant, why are they getting rid of him?

atwater27

02-24-2008, 04:47 AM

Excuse me ther lex, I didn't realize this was a debate....

The Lions ain't gonna cut shit, it is just to drum up interest. They wil get a pick for him likely a 2nd or 3rd.
Wanna bet on it?

lex

02-24-2008, 04:51 AM

Excuse me ther lex, I didn't realize this was a debate....

The Lions ain't gonna cut shit, it is just to drum up interest. They wil get a pick for him likely a 2nd or 3rd.
Wanna bet on it?

No I dont want to bet on it. Theres a reason Detroit is getting rid of him and when you figure out why that is, try to make a case for him being worth a 2nd other than wishful thinking/desperation.

And no, the Lions wont cut him as long as theres someone foolish enough to overpay for him.

atwater27

02-24-2008, 05:01 AM

lex

02-24-2008, 05:10 AM

Oh, so now everyone is foolish that wants a beast of a lineman to fight off double teams and stuff the run. They are dumb for wanting a guy who can collapse the pocket and flush the QB out to the DE's.
I'll take him. Cause he's better than what we got now. He;s better than anyone we can get in the draft at #12. And he is better than every free agent DT combined.

Thats awesome. What will we do about the other 8 games when he isnt so dominant? BTW, you still havent answered my question about why Detroit is getting rid of him.

Stargazer

02-24-2008, 06:04 AM

I'll say it again. Please no picks surrendered for this guy.

atwater27

02-24-2008, 11:27 AM

Because Matt Millen is a moron.

gobroncsnv

02-24-2008, 11:30 AM

Thats awesome. What will we do about the other 8 games when he isnt so dominant? BTW, you still havent answered my question about why Detroit is getting rid of him.

That would be as easy as answering why we got rid of Pryce.

lex

02-24-2008, 11:49 AM

That would be as easy as answering why we got rid of Pryce.

Exactly. Pryce had his moments but didnt exactly bring it all the time and he was making mad bank too.

shank

02-24-2008, 12:01 PM

Exactly. Pryce had his moments but didnt exactly bring it all the time and he was making mad bank too.

and he managed 13 sacks after seeing a change of venue.

atwater27

02-24-2008, 12:08 PM

Exactly. Pryce had his moments but didnt exactly bring it all the time and he was making mad bank too.

He was our best defensive lineman of the last decade, maybe 2 decades.
He played DT and DE depending on need, and the only season he didn't "bring it" was when he injured his freaking back.

lex

02-24-2008, 12:09 PM

and he managed 13 sacks after seeing a change of venue.

Playing for the Ravens, which has kind of been a who's who of studs on defense. We're not the Ravens in case you couldnt tell.

nevcraw

02-24-2008, 12:23 PM

He was our best defensive lineman of the last decade, maybe 2 decades.
He played DT and DE depending on need, and the only season he didn't "bring it" was when he injured his freaking back.

Pryce never "brought it" consistantly. He would disapear for a few games and show back up for a few.. I'd dare to say he has always been a tad bit overrated..

He couldn't cary Maa Tanavasa's jock.. LOL!!!!

shank

02-24-2008, 12:35 PM

Playing for the Ravens, which has kind of been a who's who of studs on defense. We're not the Ravens in case you couldnt tell.

i believe that pryce lead the team in sacks that year (i may be remembering wrong). that means that he actually outhustled the rest of the 'who's' that you just talked about to make plays.

a change of venue, coaching, city, teammates can do a lot for a players production and attitude. we've all seen how dominant he can be in his current situation, and even if he makes 0 improvements in his game and plays here just like he played this year in detroit, he's still a HUGE improvement to our d-line.

lex

02-24-2008, 12:51 PM

i believe that pryce lead the team in sacks that year (i may be remembering wrong). that means that he actually outhustled the rest of the 'who's' that you just talked about to make plays.

a change of venue, coaching, city, teammates can do a lot for a players production and attitude. we've all seen how dominant he can be in his current situation, and even if he makes 0 improvements in his game and plays here just like he played this year in detroit, he's still a HUGE improvement to our d-line.

Or it means that Baltimore has other personnel that the offense must account for. Youre right it can make a difference but considering the cost were talking about here (ie his base salary and a 2nd), its probably not worth it.

atwater27

02-24-2008, 01:38 PM

Pryce never "brought it" consistantly. He would disapear for a few games and show back up for a few.. I'd dare to say he has always been a tad bit overrated..

He couldn't cary Maa Tanavasa's jock.. LOL!!!!

Just because he didn't have sacks all the time doesn't mean he wasn't stopping the run. Pryce is the best Broncos defensive lineman since Rulon Jones. And one of the best interior lineman we have ever had.

shank

02-24-2008, 01:40 PM

Or it means that Baltimore has other personnel that the offense must account for. Youre right it can make a difference but considering the cost were talking about here (ie his base salary and a 2nd), its probably not worth it.

the only thing that has me worried about the trade price is that it sounds like the bidding has come down to us and the raiders. will al davis do everything he can to drive the price up just to spite the broncos?

i would LOVE to see a deal involving our 12 and their 15 because it means we don't actually surrender any picks and will still most likely have most of the same guys available. with ellis and dorsey seemingly far out of reach, we HAVE to do something, and as far as i'm concerned, rogers is the best option.

shank

02-24-2008, 01:41 PM

Just because he didn't have sacks all the time doesn't mean he wasn't stopping the run. Pryce is the best Broncos defensive lineman since Rulon Jones. And one of the best interior lineman we have ever had.

the reason he wasn't getting sacks is because our schemed called for him to play the run first. he publicly complained after leaving that we misused him, and i can't help but agree.

there were motivation issues that stemmed from injuries, but him feeling under-utilized had to have eroded at his motivation as well.

atwater27

02-24-2008, 01:41 PM

the only thing that has me worried about the trade price is that it sounds like the bidding has come down to us and the raiders. will al davis do everything he can to drive the price up just to spite the broncos?

i would LOVE to see a deal involving our 12 and their 15 because it means we don't actually surrender any picks and will still most likely have most of the same guys available. with ellis and dorsey seemingly far out of reach, we HAVE to do something, and as far as i'm concerned, rogers is the best option.

That would be an incredible move. 3 spots in the 1st for Rogers. You are a genius.

lex

02-24-2008, 01:47 PM

the reason he wasn't getting sacks is because our schemed called for him to play the run first. he publicly complained after leaving that we misused him, and i can't help but agree.

there were motivation issues that stemmed from injuries, but him feeling under-utilized had to have eroded at his motivation as well.

Plus he was too undepaid to do what the team needed....oh, wait!

Nature Boy

02-24-2008, 10:59 PM

Gerrard Warren. Don't we wish we got him back? Another thanks to Jim Bates.

Lonestar

02-24-2008, 11:30 PM

Just because he didn't have sacks all the time doesn't mean he wasn't stopping the run. Pryce is the best Broncos defensive lineman since Rulon Jones. And one of the best interior lineman we have ever had.

When someone was riding his back.. I can;t count the number of time after he got his fat contract that mikey and Rod had to call him out..

He had other things on his mind while in DEN how much money he was flushing down the toilet with his recording studio..

When he got to BAL they built incentives into his contract.. He went from making 9 million DEN to less than 1 mil base salary.. He finally Had to work for his living..

Pryce, Trevor
DE (#93)
Year: 1997

Lone Tree, CO
Position: 28

Salary History

2006 1000000.00
2007 2000000.00
2008 3000000.00
2009 4000000.00
2010 4500000.00
2005 in denver
Pryce, Trevor $ 3,000,000 $ 0 $ 1,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 6,266,666

2004
Pryce, Trevor $ 5,350,000 $ 0 $ 700,000 $ 6,050,000 $ 7,816,667

2003

Pryce, Trevor $ 4,300,000 $ 0 $ 500,000 $ 4,800,000 $ 6,566,667

2002

Pryce, Trevor $ 800,000 $ 0 $ 305,040 $ 1,105,040 $ 2,871,707

2001
Pryce, Trevor $ 450,000 $ 106,000 $ 3,920 $ 2,462,586 $ 2,462,586

2000
Pryce, Trevor $ 762,800 $ 242,000 $ 104,300 $ 1,109,100 $ 1,109,100

Notice where the fat contract kicked in..

underrated29

02-24-2008, 11:48 PM

The more and more i look at it. I have realized that we have to come away with rodgers. I think most of us agree that we have way too many holes right now on this team to fix in one year. We do. We just have too many.

I dont think any DT we get in this draft will be able to come in and make an impact like rodgers would. If we can had rodgers for anything less than giving up our 1st or 2nd. It MUST be done.

We can then still draft a perfect player at 12 or move up or down and get great talent. That will also leave us with the need to find one more dt imo and a top notch LB- which can be had with our 1st or 2nd. It makes no matter what his salary is because we have to have him. HIm and a top notch LB and another DT to pair with thomas and mckinly and doom, ek, and moss just might be enough to slow down the run and let our LBs mop up.

If that can be done, we can get off the field. Have more time on the clock to score 12 field goals-unless we get stewart or a FB. And maybe just maybe enough wins for a playoff spot.