PDA

View Full Version : Krieger: Money talks with Broncos' Marshall



Lonestar
02-09-2010, 11:08 PM
Krieger: Money talks with Broncos' Marshall
By Dave Krieger
Denver Post Columnist
POSTED: 02/09/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
UPDATED: 02/09/2010 11:46:41 AM MST


Now that the Super Bowl champion Saints have reminded everyone how useful a 6-foot-4 wide receiver can be — thank you, Marques Colston — let's set our imaginations free for a minute.

Imagine that everything the relevant parties have been saying lately about Brandon Marshall and the Broncos is true.

Imagine that neither Marshall nor coach Josh McDaniels has any problem continuing their professional association, as both recently said.

Imagine owner Pat Bowlen would like Marshall to stay, as he recently said, which really doesn't take much imagination.

Finally, imagine that this isn't all just posturing on everyone's part to salvage some semblance of leverage in trade talks.

In our imaginary world, where getting rid of a Pro Bowl wide receiver is not a foregone conclusion, the important thing to remember is that this is not like the Jay Cutler situation or the Tony Scheffler situation or the Peyton Hillis situation.

Despite the soap opera surrounding Marshall, this is not fundamentally about personality or performance. This is about money.

Marshall is one of only two NFL receivers to catch at least 100 passes in each of the past three seasons (Wes Welker is the other). He finished in the top five in catches and top 14 in receiving yardage each of those years.

Over those same three seasons, Marshall's salary cap number ranked 52nd (2009), 133rd (2008) and 137th (2007) among NFL wide receivers.

In other words, he has been underpaid throughout his NFL career to date. This was at the root of his problems with McDaniels last season. Based on former coach Mike Shanahan's policy, Marshall believed he was in line for a new deal as he entered the final year of a rookie contract he had clearly outplayed.

Shanahan's firing changed everything. McDaniels wasn't handing out a big new contract to a player who had proved nothing to him, especially one with significant off-field issues. So Marshall asked for a trade to a team that would pay him market value. McDaniels rejected this request as well.

That made it a war of wills. The message Marshall heard was that he would play for his below-market salary and like it. With NFL teams routinely renegotiating player salaries downward, the argument that he had no right to renegotiate his upward rang hollow. So he acted out, earning a preseason suspension.

Marshall has since acknowledged that was unprofessional, but there was a certain method to his petulance. The Broncos now know the risks in forcing him to play for below-market pay, which the lapsing labor agreement gives them the ability to do again next season.

With Marshall stuck in the purgatory of restricted free agency, the Broncos could tender him at the highest level, requiring compensation of first- and third-round draft choices from any team that signs him. If no team will pay that onerous price and the Broncos are unable to negotiate an acceptable trade, they could force Marshall to play for them in 2010 at a salary slightly in excess of $3 million, still well below his market value. That would be a prescription for more soap opera.

On the other hand, if all the parties to this relationship mean what they've been saying lately — a big if — the Broncos could attempt to bridge the gap by offering Marshall a one-year, market-value deal. The top 15 cap numbers for wideouts last season ranged from $6.4 million to $10.9 million.

Marshall would no doubt prefer a multiyear deal, but with a lockout looming in 2011, many teams may be reluctant to offer financial commitments beyond the coming season. And a one-year, market- value deal would let the Broncos see if Marshall could remain drama-free in the absence of a contract dispute.

Giving up on a Pro Bowl wideout one year after giving up on a Pro Bowl quarterback seems like a high price to pay for McDaniels to establish his authority, which is how Bowlen explained the young coach's behavior in his first year. By expressing the hope that Marshall stays, even Bowlen signaled that talent still matters.

Of course, everything Marshall and McDaniels have been saying lately could be spin. McDaniels' enthusiasm for establishing his authority, combined with the unhappiness among certain Shanahan holdovers toward the end of last season, strongly suggests the coach will continue cleaning house until the locker room is composed entirely of players he considers loyal.

So a Marshall trade still is the way to bet. But all the recent happy talk offers a reminder that it is not inevitable. The Broncos could yet decide to pay one of the NFL's top receivers a fair salary. In fact, it's likely to be their best option.

Dave Krieger: 303-954-5297, dkrieger@denverpost.com or twitter.com/DaveKrieger



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14361974#ixzz0f6Qn9lTY

DenBronx
02-10-2010, 12:49 AM
and money should talk cuz marshall has out performed his rookie contract. marshall is a top tier wr in this league and would only be better if he had more help and wasnt being targeted every play. he was double and triple covered many times and still put up numbers with a noodle arm qb.

if were not offered at least a 1st and 3rd then were idiots if we dont keep him.

SOCALORADO.
02-10-2010, 08:38 AM
i think theres a good chance now, that DEN keeps Marshall.
Bowlens comments and the looming issue with the labor deal, may make
Marshall and his agent realize whats at stake.
I say pay him the one year deal for next year, with the understanding that as long as everything irons itself out in labor talks, DEN will give him a multi-year mega-deal the folloowing year. This gets Marshall a big 10 MIL payday in the meantime, (or something like it) and allows DEN to monitor Marshalls off-the-field attitude for one more year before having to make the big decision.

TXBRONC
02-10-2010, 10:30 AM
i think theres a good chance now, that DEN keeps Marshall.
Bowlens comments and the looming issue with the labor deal, may make
Marshall and his agent realize whats at stake.
I say pay him the one year deal for next year, with the understanding that as long as everything irons itself out in labor talks, DEN will give him a multi-year mega-deal the folloowing year. This gets Marshall a big 10 MIL payday in the meantime, (or something like it) and allows DEN to monitor Marshalls off-the-field attitude for one more year before having to make the big decision.

As I said many occassions if McDaniels trades Marshall away all create one more hole to fill and it's unlike that hole could filled adequately in one year in my opinion.

TXBRONC
02-10-2010, 10:35 AM
and money should talk cuz marshall has out performed his rookie contract. marshall is a top tier wr in this league and would only be better if he had more help and wasnt being targeted every play. he was double and triple covered many times and still put up numbers with a noodle arm qb.

if were not offered at least a 1st and 3rd then were idiots if we dont keep him.

Assuming that Marshall is traded and we get a first and a third that opens up another can of worms.

Northman
02-10-2010, 11:11 AM
i think theres a good chance now, that DEN keeps Marshall.
Bowlens comments and the looming issue with the labor deal, may make
Marshall and his agent realize whats at stake.
I say pay him the one year deal for next year, with the understanding that as long as everything irons itself out in labor talks, DEN will give him a multi-year mega-deal the folloowing year. This gets Marshall a big 10 MIL payday in the meantime, (or something like it) and allows DEN to monitor Marshalls off-the-field attitude for one more year before having to make the big decision.

I guarantee that Marshall wont go for that. He wants his big payday now and Denver isnt going to give him the farm for a one year deal.

Lonestar
02-10-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm still for going RFA with him.

If someone is willing to give us a 1 and 3 and pay him Great for BM and even better for us.

We have many other holes to fill and can use those choices to do so.

Yes I know that the draft is a crap shoot. But even trading the first for more day one picks or a 2 and a 3 would give us upwards of 5 picks within the top 90 or so best players in the college players. Usually less of a crap shoot. I trust Josh/Xman more than I did mike in this area.

They will be better prepared than last year and know what exsisting players can or can't do will decrease those "flyer" choices in the future, IMO.

I know some here believe that BM is the second best thing since sliced bread but I do not think the potential of him blowing up again and again once he gets even more money to spend, on the MOON. Which then creates the same hole with 2 perhaps three or four less draft top one hundred choices.

I'd rather have a chance to plug lots of weak areas on the LOS, which can make us better than having a WR that can't get the ball because our QB either has to throw all the time brcause our D can't stop other teams OR is flat on his back because we can't run the ball or his OLINE can't protect him.

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Ravage!!!
02-10-2010, 11:37 AM
i think theres a good chance now, that DEN keeps Marshall.
Bowlens comments and the looming issue with the labor deal, may make
Marshall and his agent realize whats at stake.
I say pay him the one year deal for next year, with the understanding that as long as everything irons itself out in labor talks, DEN will give him a multi-year mega-deal the folloowing year. This gets Marshall a big 10 MIL payday in the meantime, (or something like it) and allows DEN to monitor Marshalls off-the-field attitude for one more year before having to make the big decision.

I have to wonder, Socal, why would Marshall go for that? He's taking all the risk, again.. and having to prove himself...again.

He already felt he was promised a bigger contract before last season, and then felt he put his career in danger due to the Broncos' medical staff. He was told he would have to go out and prove himself last season.

Now, he could get injured and have the Broncos NOT pay him the deal he was "promised" because he put himself at risk. NO WAY his agent would let him do this. That would be a horrible mistake.

Ravage!!!
02-10-2010, 11:39 AM
Seems no one around here can like a player's skills without being accused of thinking he's the "best thing since sliced bread." Unbelievable. :coffee:

CoachChaz
02-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I have to wonder, Socal, why would Marshall go for that? He's taking all the risk, again.. and having to prove himself...again.

He already felt he was promised a bigger contract before last season, and then felt he put his career in danger due to the Broncos' medical staff. He was told he would have to go out and prove himself last season.

Now, he could get injured and have the Broncos NOT pay him the deal he was "promised" because he put himself at risk. NO WAY his agent would let him do this. That would be a horrible mistake.

That's all completely fair...but why would Denver or any other team take a similar risk in committing tons of money to a guy who has done something irrational and troublesome every season? I think the dilemma is that Marshall the player deserves every bit of the money...but Marshall the person might not.

Eventually he'll get paid. i think Denver will do it, but even if they dont, someone will

DenBronx
02-10-2010, 07:55 PM
Assuming that Marshall is traded and we get a first and a third that opens up another can of worms.

true that and i think we would have no choice but to draft dez bryant to help fill the void of marshall. unless we send the 3rd to new england for moss.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-10-2010, 08:07 PM
true that and i think we would have no choice but to draft dez bryant to help fill the void of marshall. unless we send the 3rd to new england for moss.

Dez Bryant's talent would be wasted in this offense. 3yd curls and bubble screens aren't his forte.

JDL
02-10-2010, 08:33 PM
I wonder if we've given any thought to using the franchise tag on one of our RFA's... according to this article you CAN do that....

http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2006/03/23/nfl-franchise-tags-2/

So, rather than a 1st and 3rd - you can get two 1sts.. or force a team that wants to sign him to give something more... particularly useful if Indy comes a calling on Marshall and wants to give up just the 31st pick in the draft... you have less control over the value you actually receive just by tendering the RFA.

DenBronx
02-10-2010, 09:14 PM
i think it's possible we will tag doom but not bmarsh. it will be interesting in seeing if doom can have just as much success as an olb without nolan on his own. if he does then he might get the big money next year. maybe it's worth a one year tag and i'm sure doom wouldnt complain too much for 9 mill next year.

if someone really wanted doom then that would force major compensation our way and i could live with two 1st. i think we should sell high buy low through the draft.

dogfish
02-10-2010, 11:18 PM
I wonder if we've given any thought to using the franchise tag on one of our RFA's... according to this article you CAN do that....

http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2006/03/23/nfl-franchise-tags-2/

So, rather than a 1st and 3rd - you can get two 1sts.. or force a team that wants to sign him to give something more... particularly useful if Indy comes a calling on Marshall and wants to give up just the 31st pick in the draft... you have less control over the value you actually receive just by tendering the RFA.

i've said on several occasions that i think we need to use the franchise tag to prevent dumervil from leaving, but i highly doubt we will-- too much difference in cash between the expensive tag and the inexpensive one-year RFA tender. . . i'm sure (okay, that's obviously an exaggeration-- should say i'm betting) we'll take our chances with all of our RFAs. . . except probably orton, who JMFMCD has already indicated that they'd like to work out an extension for :doh: . . .

its tough to predict how things will play out with labor unrest looming, and i'm hoping that the uncertainty will prevent teams from raiding our roster, but i doubt it'll work that way. . . i'm guessing that, true to form, teams like buffalo will sit on their dollars, while a few big spenders like dallas and washington will take advantage of the uncapped year to spend recklessly and scoop up all the available talent they can get their hands on. . .

if that is how things play out, i think it's a realistic possibility that we could find ourselves with a huge stockpile of draft picks and a roster with very little veteran talent to build around aside from clady. . . i hope we don't let that happen, but bowlen will most likely have to open the checkbook at some point, whether to use the franchise tag or to match an offer sheet. . . we'll see how willing he is to do that. . .

rcsodak
02-11-2010, 12:10 AM
and money should talk cuz marshall has out performed his rookie contract. marshall is a top tier wr in this league and would only be better if he had more help and wasnt being targeted every play. he was double and triple covered many times and still put up numbers with a noodle arm qb.

if were not offered at least a 1st and 3rd then were idiots if we dont keep him.

Don't be so hard on yourself.... :rolleyes:




:D

rcsodak
02-11-2010, 12:17 AM
Seems no one around here can like a player's skills without being accused of thinking he's the "best thing since sliced bread." Unbelievable. :coffee:

Seems some people can't seem to find the "quote" button when addressing other posters quotes, either. :coffee:


And what else is it, when posters say if BM is allowed to walk that the team will tank?

Since when is 1 wr = a team?

I seem to remember a NE team with a flotilla of no-name wr's that won a SB.

He wasn't missed in the last game. He won't be missed next season.

If they can turn his value into O/Dline/LB's that stop the run/open up the run, all the better, imo.

And prolly for about the same amount of money.

rcsodak
02-11-2010, 12:19 AM
Dez Bryant's talent would be wasted in this offense. 3yd curls and bubble screens aren't his forte.

Never mind the fact it was a first year offense full of new faces.... :rolleyes:

rcsodak
02-11-2010, 12:21 AM
i think it's possible we will tag doom but not bmarsh. it will be interesting in seeing if doom can have just as much success as an olb without nolan on his own. if he does then he might get the big money next year. maybe it's worth a one year tag and i'm sure doom wouldnt complain too much for 9 mill next year.

if someone really wanted doom then that would force major compensation our way and i could live with two 1st. i think we should sell high buy low through the draft.

2 Franchise tags to use.

But when you do that, it makes it awful difficult to repeat that the next year. 120% payraise.

rcsodak
02-11-2010, 12:24 AM
i've said on several occasions that i think we need to use the franchise tag to prevent dumervil from leaving, but i highly doubt we will-- too much difference in cash between the expensive tag and the inexpensive one-year RFA tender. . . i'm sure (okay, that's obviously an exaggeration-- should say i'm betting) we'll take our chances with all of our RFAs. . . except probably orton, who JMFMCD has already indicated that they'd like to work out an extension for :doh: . . .

its tough to predict how things will play out with labor unrest looming, and i'm hoping that the uncertainty will prevent teams from raiding our roster, but i doubt it'll work that way. . . i'm guessing that, true to form, teams like buffalo will sit on their dollars, while a few big spenders like dallas and washington will take advantage of the uncapped year to spend recklessly and scoop up all the available talent they can get their hands on. . .

if that is how things play out, i think it's a realistic possibility that we could find ourselves with a huge stockpile of draft picks and a roster with very little veteran talent to build around aside from clady. . . i hope we don't let that happen, but bowlen will most likely have to open the checkbook at some point, whether to use the franchise tag or to match an offer sheet. . . we'll see how willing he is to do that. . .

Dallas was one of the last 8 standing....meaning their hands are extremely tied. I don't see them doing much more than adding via draft. In fact, I think they'll use this as an opportunity to just move up for players they think will impact this year and help them have a home-field advantage in the SB.

broncophan
02-11-2010, 03:27 AM
Money talks and BS walks.....that's why Marshall is walkin'....

Nomad
02-11-2010, 08:56 AM
2 Franchise tags to use.But when you do that, it makes it awful difficult to repeat that the next year. 120% payraise.

Doesn't teams start franchising today??

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 09:30 AM
true that and i think we would have no choice but to draft dez bryant to help fill the void of marshall. unless we send the 3rd to new england for moss.

The thing is if we drafted Bryant and assuming he's the real deal the chances are he wouldn't be able to fill the void immediate because receivers take time to develop.