PDA

View Full Version : Seattle's silence says Marshall's move unlikely



Lonestar
03-10-2010, 09:48 PM
Seattle's silence says Marshall's move unlikely
POSTED: 03/10/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
UPDATED: 03/10/2010 03:24:23 PM MST


Brandon Marshall (Denver Post file photo)
As the "Silence from Seattle" continues, the message from Puget Sound reverberates all the way to the Rocky Mountains.

The more time passes without the Seahawks submitting an offer sheet, the more they are telling the Broncos they do not want star receiver Brandon Marshall at the expense of the No. 6 overall draft pick.

As a first-round tendered, restricted free agent, Marshall was the Seahawks' guest last weekend in the Seattle area. He flew out there by private jet, then traveled by seaplane to the Seahawks' headquarters, where the team's brass awaited on the dock for a welcoming handshake.

Marshall told friends that as he flew past Seattle's Qwest Field, the video board carried the message "Welcome Brandon Marshall."

An NFL organization does not lure a college coaching icon, Pete Carroll, from USC by going second class.

More than a sterling reputation, however, the Seahawks need wins. In the two years since Mike Holmgren proclaimed himself a lame duck, Seattle has posted a 9-23 record. Marshall and his 100 catches a year would figure to help Seattle regain its winning tradition, but so do first-round draft picks.

The Seahawks have two this year — No. 6 and No. 14 overall. Rules stipulate that if the Seahawks sign Marshall to an offer sheet, they would have to compensate the Broncos with their original, first-round draft pick, which is the sixth pick in the April 22-24 draft.

So far, the Broncos are not willing to budge from getting back a first-round pick in return for Marshall. And so far, Seattle isn't budging back.

Prater signs.

Apparently, exclusive-rights free agency is to a player's negotiating leverage what a penny is to currency. Not much.

Broncos kicker Matt Prater has been in the NFL, off and on, for four years but accumulated only three full years of service time. That classified him as an exclusive-rights free agent, which got him the third-year minimum salary of $550,000 — a deal that was officially signed and sent into the league office Tuesday.
Xanders gets deal done.

The connection between newly signed defensive end Jarvis Green and Broncos coach Josh McDaniels goes back to 2002, when Green was a rookie with New England and McDaniels was a green, defensive assistant with the Patriots.

Closing the deal, however, came down to two days of negotiations between Green's agent, Albert Elias, and Broncos general manager Brian Xanders.

"He's a grounded guy, the way he deals with agents," Elias said of Xanders. "We were able to yell at each other at times, like you would a friend. I can speak freely with him. We had never worked together before and there was no posturing. This was just two guys being honest."

Mike Klis, The Denver Post



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14644166#ixzz0hpfhq848

weazel
03-10-2010, 09:50 PM
they probably witnessed Marshall's personality first-hand and lost interest... plus, he probably told them he wants a 100 million dollar contract.

Lonestar
03-10-2010, 09:54 PM
they probably witnessed Marshall's personality first-hand and lost interest... plus, he probably told them he wants a 100 million dollar contract.


I suspect that BM will be his worst enemy considering his past. Although he is one charming SOB when he smiles.

Hopefully they will bite on that and not his record.

broncohead
03-10-2010, 10:24 PM
they probably witnessed Marshall's personality first-hand and lost interest... plus, he probably told them he wants a 100 million dollar contract.

I'm sure thats exactly what happened...

Lancane
03-10-2010, 10:25 PM
Klis is a F'n idiot with the combined intelligence of cockroach infestation. Seattles' so called silence is called weighing options, Klis would not know about that, since he is nothing more then a beat-writer who completely kisses the Denver Brasses arses and drolls on tidbits thrown to him by his so-called informants. Seattle has already likely contacted Xanders and McDaniels about a trade and they were more then likely shot down. Signing a player which would cost you the 6th overall pick is not an easy decision to make, especially when you have a plethura of needs which you need to improve your organization.

And Bowlen is likely being included in the decision because of his wanting to retain Brandon Marshall. I would not be surprised if here in the next week if Denver simply signed a new contract with him, or he signs with Seattle...but the rest of this is drivel. Really, they met him and did not like his attitude? - Hello? Read a little bit, Brandon already knows several people tied to the Seattle organization and is well respected by them. Next thing you know, the fans will start to claim he was with Big Ben in Georgia and it was he who sexually assaulted her.

:coffee:

T.K.O.
03-10-2010, 10:26 PM
"would figure to help Seattle regain its winning tradition":laugh::D

Northman
03-10-2010, 10:38 PM
Klis is a F'n idiot with the combined intelligence of cockroach infestation. Seattles' so called silence is called weighing options, Klis would not know about that, since he is nothing more then a beat-writer who completely kisses the Denver Brasses arses and drolls on tidbits thrown to him by his so-called informants. Seattle has already likely contacted Xanders and McDaniels about a trade and they were more then likely shot down. Signing a player which would cost you the 6th overall pick is not an easy decision to make, especially when you have a plethura of needs which you need to improve your organization.

And Bowlen is likely being included in the decision because of his wanting to retain Brandon Marshall. I would not be surprised if here in the next week if Denver simply signed a new contract with him, or he signs with Seattle...but the rest of this is drivel. Really, they met him and did not like his attitude? - Hello? Read a little bit, Brandon already knows several people tied to the Seattle organization and is well respected by them. Next thing you know, the fans will start to claim he was with Big Ben in Georgia and it was he who sexually assaulted her.

:coffee:


Man, you sound like a jilted girlfriend. :lol:

Poet
03-10-2010, 10:43 PM
Damn......

CrazyHorse
03-10-2010, 10:47 PM
Yay!!! Why get Baby T.O. when you can have the real thing.

Lancane
03-10-2010, 10:56 PM
Man, you sound like a jilted girlfriend. :lol:

LMAO...

Actually I just tend to get pissed when I hear a bunch of B.S. based off nothing, let alone the idiotic drivel of fans who are acting like rabid dogs ready to pounce and keep saying baseless crap. I am a realist, and reality is that Marshall is being treated as though he is the worst damn person in football or ever has been. Yet, look at Romanowski, but we fans loved him no matter his mistakes, Rod Smith...hell, fans were saying we needed to trade for Vick not long ago or try and sign Ray Lewis, but Marshall is a scumbag and is guilty of everything...so I believe it is those fans who sound like they are jilted girlfriends.

Tned
03-10-2010, 11:00 PM
I suspect that BM will be his worst enemy considering his past. Although he is one charming SOB when he smiles.

Hopefully they will bite on that and not his record.

Yea, I'm sure his 320 or so receptions in the last three years won't even come into play.

Broncolingus
03-10-2010, 11:08 PM
Interesting posts in this thread...

Seattle's - let alone the rest of the NFLs - 'silence' is proof positive of what the league as a whole thinks about BM...

Interesting to note that almost every other 'star' receiver in the league - with the exception of T.O (who is admittedly getting some years on him now) is gone and dude is really all that's left with only one (maybe two) teams showing any real interest.

Personally, I'm delighted...and I love the fact even more that Denver's brass is sticking to their guns and not giving him away.

What a great 'ego-check' for this young man...

Poet
03-10-2010, 11:11 PM
Yea, I'm sure his 320 or so receptions in the last three years won't even come into play.

They've done him wonders in regards to getting contracts. I mean the guy is so good that teams are just lining up to snat......

I said at the end of the year that you guys may end up with him for a variety of reasons and I'm starting to think that BM will be a Bronco next year.

Tned
03-10-2010, 11:12 PM
Interesting posts in this thread...

Seattle's - let alone the rest of the NFLs - 'silence' is proof positive of what the league as a whole thinks about BM...

Interesting to note that almost every other 'star' receiver in the league - with the exception of T.O (who is admittedly getting some years on him now) is gone and dude is really all that's left with only one (maybe two) teams showing any real interest.

Personally, I'm delighted...and I love the fact even more that Denver's brass is sticking to their guns and not giving him away.

What a great 'ego-check' for this young man...

How many of those other 'star' receivers were RFA's with first round tenders, vs. just being free agents that were signed. How many 1st round tendered RFA's have been signed to offere sheets, whether WRs or other positions? As far as I know, I think the number is zero.

While I have no doubt that Marhsall's history, and McDaniels action in week 17 has frightened some teams, the fact that non RFA's are moving is also likely indicative of concern about the CBA, and teams being unwilling to both give up first round compensation and a big contract for anyone.

Tned
03-10-2010, 11:13 PM
They've done him wonders in regards to getting contracts. I mean the guy is so good that teams are just lining up to snat......

I said at the end of the year that you guys may end up with him for a variety of reasons and I'm starting to think that BM will be a Bronco next year.

I hope so. Unlike many fans on this forum, I am more focused on production than emotions. The team is better with him on the field, period.

Poet
03-10-2010, 11:16 PM
I hope so. Unlike many fans on this forum, I am more focused on production than emotions. The team is better with him on the field, period.

You're one of my favorite posters, so I'm just going to highlight the part that set you up for one helluva zinger.

:salute:

Broncolingus
03-10-2010, 11:25 PM
How many of those other 'star' receivers were RFA's with first round tenders, vs. just being free agents that were signed. How many 1st round tendered RFA's have been signed to offere sheets, whether WRs or other positions? As far as I know, I think the number is zero.

While I have no doubt that Marhsall's history, and McDaniels action in week 17 has frightened some teams, the fact that non RFA's are moving is also likely indicative of concern about the CBA, and teams being unwilling to both give up first round compensation and a big contract for anyone.


I hope so. Unlike many fans on this forum, I am more focused on production than emotions. The team is better with him on the field, period.



Thx, T...

Course, not sure where I said anything about the movement of RFAs related to CBA NOT having anything to do with this...seems like a legitimate point and I agree...

...so...?

I was more talking about the man himself and happy Bronc's Inc. was staying the course.

BL, if I bet the house, I'd say that 1) BM figured he'd get RFA status (everyone here did anyway and I don't think that surprised anyone), and 2) he figured that regardless of the RFA status and CBA issues, he would have already been out of Denver or at least generated a lot more interest than has been to date.

But, he's a gifted receiver for sure...no doubt about that and TWT.

As always, it's all good bud...

LRtagger
03-10-2010, 11:36 PM
I could care less whether we keep him or trade him...but what I REALLY dont want to happen is to not be able to reach terms with another team this year and have Brandon leave next offseason with us getting nothing in return.

Either sign the guy or trade him...even if its not a top 10 pick. If you don't plan on signing him long term, then deal him now please.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-10-2010, 11:40 PM
I could care less whether we keep him or trade him...but what I REALLY dont want to happen is to not be able to reach terms with another team this year and have Brandon leave next offseason with us getting nothing in return.

Either sign the guy or trade him...even if its not a top 10 pick. If you don't plan on signing him long term, then deal him now please.

The Broncos offered Brandon a contract before last season, and he turned it down. I would assume, if he is a Bronco this year, and he keeps his nose clean, they will offer him a contract again. I, for one, hope he has matured, as I would love to see him stay a Bronco.

Zweems56
03-10-2010, 11:46 PM
Honestly, this is an interesting situation to me. He turned down the offer from us last year because there was almost no guaranteed money. This restricted free agency period allows us to find out what the kid is worth to the REST of the league. I'm damn near positive that if we offer him a contract again this coming year, it will have guaranteed money (maybe not as much as he wanted come the start of this free agency period) based on the fact that he's generally stayed out of trouble. In no way am I convincing myself that I'll be wearing my Marshall jersey next season, but at the same time, Tned is absolutely correct. We are a much better team with Brandon Marshall on the field.

weazel
03-11-2010, 12:55 AM
I suspect that BM will be his worst enemy considering his past. Although he is one charming SOB when he smiles.

Hopefully they will bite on that and not his record.

you are gay! LMAO, Jr
:beer:

Italianmobstr7
03-11-2010, 01:05 AM
I hope so. Unlike many fans on this forum, I am more focused on production than emotions. The team is better with him on the field, period.

I'm right there with ya. Marshall needs to stay a Bronco. Were a better team with him!

xzn
03-11-2010, 01:10 AM
In a perfect world he signs here for a reasonable long term contract that protects the team if he does screw up. Continuing the fantasy, he grows up, gives back to the community sincerely, produces like a mutha on the field, and contributes to constant deep playoff runs and a couple of titles on his way to Canton....


.... (he wakes up)

dogfish
03-11-2010, 01:52 AM
I could care less whether we keep him or trade him...but what I REALLY dont want to happen is to not be able to reach terms with another team this year and have Brandon leave next offseason with us getting nothing in return.


we can always franchise him next year if need be. . .




In a perfect world he signs here for a reasonable long term contract that protects the team if he does screw up. Continuing the fantasy, he grows up, gives back to the community sincerely, produces like a mutha on the field, and contributes to constant deep playoff runs and a couple of titles on his way to Canton....

....and shortly after his retirement, makes headlines again when he enters a celebrity athlete cagefighter event and brutally mauls former NHL thug Todd Bertuzzi.


.... (he wakes up)

while you're dreaming. . .

Lonestar
03-11-2010, 02:20 AM
Yea, I'm sure his 320 or so receptions in the last three years won't even come into play.

Guess you did not catch my drift

Record as in misdeeds, time spent with the commish, police reports, number of arrests. If they look at that over the number of catches that may indeed be part of the reason he is not a hawk already.

Tned
03-11-2010, 08:19 AM
You're one of my favorite posters, so I'm just going to highlight the part that set you up for one helluva zinger.

:salute:

I just go back to the fact that Mike Anderson, a beloved Bronco, was suspended for 4 times as many games as Marshall has in his career. It took failed druig tests for Anderson to get suspended (they don't announce or suspend on the first failed test), which meant if he smoked weed -- or inhaled too much second hand smoke for the third time -- he would have been suspended for one year.

Not too many people were saying, "cut Anderson, we can't risk keeping him on the team and having him get a one year suspenson."


Thx, T...

Course, not sure where I said anything about the movement of RFAs related to CBA NOT having anything to do with this...seems like a legitimate point and I agree...

...so...?

I was more talking about the man himself and happy Bronc's Inc. was staying the course.

BL, if I bet the house, I'd say that 1) BM figured he'd get RFA status (everyone here did anyway and I don't think that surprised anyone), and 2) he figured that regardless of the RFA status and CBA issues, he would have already been out of Denver or at least generated a lot more interest than has been to date.

But, he's a gifted receiver for sure...no doubt about that and TWT.

As always, it's all good bud...

In genreal I agree. My guess (and that's all it is) is that Marshall thought he would get a pretty big offer, pretty quick and would be courted by multiple teams. Anyone that follows the local or national press on twitter or elsewhere knows that they thought the same thing. However, in the last week, they have also pointed out how cautious teams are being, especially in terms of signing RFA's.

Nobody knew how teams would react to the uncapped year and CBA uncertainty. It was towards the end of the season, when it started to be clear it likely wouldn't be the huge bidding war (in general, not just for Marshall) that the players expected in an uncapped year. This became apparent when the owners where playing hardball and had no desire to cave to the players union, who had been under the belief that owners were terrifed of out of control spending in the uncapped year. Instead, owners looked at it as an opportunity to get out of contracts they don't want (cap hits don't matter), no requirement to hit the minimum team salary levels, and no desire to sign big, long term contracts without knowing what the new CBA will look like.

All that said, I think McDaniels wants him gone, so in the end, he will take whatever compensation he can get, even if that means taking a 2nd round or multiple picks. So, if no team signs him to an offer sheet, I can see Brandon eventually signing his tender offer, and then the Broncos trading him and his one year contract to someone for whatever we can get. Then, with that pick, we will almost certainly pick someone with FAR less talent and impact on the field.

Then again, I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I am far from an expert this morning...

Nomad
03-11-2010, 08:19 AM
Interesting posts in this thread...

Seattle's - let alone the rest of the NFLs - 'silence' is proof positive of what the league as a whole thinks about BM...

Interesting to note that almost every other 'star' receiver in the league - with the exception of T.O (who is admittedly getting some years on him now) is gone and dude is really all that's left with only one (maybe two) teams showing any real interest.

Personally, I'm delighted...and I love the fact even more that Denver's brass is sticking to their guns and not giving him away.

What a great 'ego-check' for this young man...

Spot on Lingus! Teams know what will happen next time Marshall has another episode of Mr Hyde and they don't want to throw the money he is requesting!! If anybody takes him, it'll be the Bengals. But that's says alot about Marshall that a team would rather gamble on an unproven #6 than a proven WO in the NFL, then again Seattle also has more pressing needs than a WO (no matter how good they are).

Oh well, kinda like Tagger, I'm ready to move on! Marshall will not change but it's almost to the point I don't care what the BRONCOS do anymore!!

Tned
03-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Spot on Lingus! Teams know what will happen next time Marshall has another episode of Mr Hyde and they don't want to throw the money he is requesting!! If anybody takes him, it'll be the Bengals. But that's says alot about Marshall that a team would rather gamble on an unproven #6 than a proven WO in the NFL, then again Seattle also has more pressing needs than a WO (no matter how good they are).

Oh well, kinda like Tagger, I'm ready to move on! Marshall will not change but it's almost to the point I don't care what the BRONCOS do anymore!!

Ok, since we all know what it says about Marshall.

What does it say about Dumervil? How many teams have talked to him? I forget, what's the highest offer he's gotten so far from another team?

What about Orton?

Miles Austin? Mike Bell? Ronnie Brown? Pierre Thomas? Braylon Edwards? Vincent Jackson?

And all the other offensive restricted free agents, not to mention all the RFA's on defense that have not been given an offer sheet by any team.

It's great to focus only on Marshall and his trip to Seattle and say, "see, everyone sees he's one McDonalds wrapper away from a 8 game suspension", but the reality is that nobody is signing or having serious talks with the restricted free agents, because with the uncertainty with the CBA, teams don't want to both give big contracts and give up draft picks.

Northman
03-11-2010, 08:31 AM
You're one of my favorite posters, so I'm just going to highlight the part that set you up for one helluva zinger.

:salute:


Amen.

Northman
03-11-2010, 08:33 AM
In a perfect world he signs here for a reasonable long term contract that protects the team if he does screw up. Continuing the fantasy, he grows up, gives back to the community sincerely, produces like a mutha on the field, and contributes to constant deep playoff runs and a couple of titles on his way to Canton....


.... (he wakes up)

Bwhahahahahahahahahaaa!


Ok, im good....

Northman
03-11-2010, 08:35 AM
I just go back to the fact that Mike Anderson, a beloved Bronco, was suspended for 4 times as many games as Marshall has in his career. It took failed druig tests for Anderson to get suspended (they don't announce or suspend on the first failed test), which meant if he smoked weed -- or inhaled too much second hand smoke for the third time -- he would have been suspended for one year.

Not too many people were saying, "cut Anderson, we can't risk keeping him on the team and having him get a one year suspenson."





Who's Mike Anderson? Yea, you get my drift. :lol:

Tned
03-11-2010, 08:48 AM
Who's Mike Anderson? Yea, you get my drift. :lol:

Make one, and I am sure I will get it. ;)

Northman
03-11-2010, 08:51 AM
Make one, and I am sure I will get it. ;)


Anderson was nowhere close to Brandon in terms of importance on the field. Replace Anderson with Tatum, Clinton, Olandis, and you get the same result. Also, Mike doesnt have the history of baggage that Brandon has so thus thats why fans are concerned about paying big money to a guy who is just not able to learn from his mistakes. This dates back to his college days and he has yet to go one year without having some kind of issue both on and off the field. So your comparison with Anderson was weak sauce at best. Did that help explain it for you?

Tned
03-11-2010, 08:59 AM
Anderson was nowhere close to Brandon in terms of importance on the field. Replace Anderson with Tatum, Clinton, Olandis, and you get the same result. Also, Mike doesnt have the history of baggage that Brandon has so thus thats why fans are concerned about paying big money to a guy who is just not able to learn from his mistakes. This dates back to his college days and he has yet to go one year without having some kind of issue both on and off the field. So your comparison with Anderson was weak sauce at best. Did that help explain it for you?

Come on North, most of the people 'concerned' about paying Brandon big money, don't even want him on the team at the $2.5 million tender offer, or franchised in '11 and '12. They are saying take a 2nd round pick for him, just get him off the team.

In most cases, the argument is "one more mistake and he's gone", but he's yet to be suspended for as long as Anderson, and Anderson was one puff away from a year long suspension and people didn't call for him to go, because he was beloved and the vocal minority currently have their mob mentality focused on Marshall (I'm curious who will be next).

As this is an uncapped year, and Bowlen claims there are no money problems with the team, he could give Marshall a long term contract, and give him is bonus money in such a way that isn't prorated for the life of the contract, so that even if he got suspended down the road, there would be no cap consequences. Or, keep him on the tender, then franchise him and then franchise him.

The point is that most of the people that want him gone, want him gone based on emotion, not based on production or value.

Northman
03-11-2010, 09:17 AM
Come on North, most of the people 'concerned' about paying Brandon big money, don't even want him on the team at the $2.5 million tender offer, or franchised in '11 and '12. They are saying take a 2nd round pick for him, just get him off the team.

In most cases, the argument is "one more mistake and he's gone", but he's yet to be suspended for as long as Anderson, and Anderson was one puff away from a year long suspension and people didn't call for him to go, because he was beloved and the vocal minority currently have their mob mentality focused on Marshall (I'm curious who will be next).

As this is an uncapped year, and Bowlen claims there are no money problems with the team, he could give Marshall a long term contract, and give him is bonus money in such a way that isn't prorated for the life of the contract, so that even if he got suspended down the road, there would be no cap consequences. Or, keep him on the tender, then franchise him and then franchise him.

The point is that most of the people that want him gone, want him gone based on emotion, not based on production or value.


Can you blame them? Seriously? The reason why is because we've seen the damage done by other players who have personal irresponsibility and dont want to waste money on a guy who is travelling very fast down that path. The only reason Marshall is being singled out is because he is the only one on this team with a crapload of baggage. And your kidding yourself if you think that Marshall and his agent is going to sign a contract with stipulations about his off the field behavior. Brandon has already seen with TO that some team will take him without all the clauses. It may not be happening at this moment but just like Michael Vick somebody will eventually do it.

At the end of the day man its one thing to have had an incident like Rod Smith and Mike Anderson where you used bad judgement at one specific moment. Its something entirely different when a player continues to have issues for the length of his career and doesnt seem to be GETTING IT. Does Brandon deserve more money based on his on the field performance? Absolutely. Unfortuantely for him there is more that goes into one's contract when you have a troubled past and it ultimately could cost you time spent on the field because of it. Does Denver really want to shovel out money for a guy who could end up killing his girlfriend or doing something else which would get him kicked out of the league for any length of time? I dont think so.

For me, its not about emotion. Its just im tired of hearing the same tripe coming from this guy about "learning" from his indescretions. But, if no team bites on his tender than im all for him coming back and fullfilling his current contract. After that, if we franchise him so be it but at the end of the day if Brandon is pissed because he isnt getting a contract there is only one person to blame for that. Himself. The reason why no one really cared about Smith or Anderson is because one guy learned and took responsibility for his actions while the other was just a journeyman RB who was easily replaced. It would suck to lose Brandon's talents but sometimes you have to cut your losses so that you can move forward.

broncofaninfla
03-11-2010, 09:29 AM
On Marshall, Seahawks should consider an offer sheet end run (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/on-marshall-seahawks-should-consider-an-offer-sheet-end-run/)

Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2010 9:14 AM ET
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/assets_c/2010/03/nfl_marshall-thumb-250x185-7031.jpg (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/nfl_marshall.jpg)After word emerged that the Seahawks were interested in receiver Brandon Marshall, multiple reports surfaced that the Broncos will consider nothing less than that to which they're entitled under the rules of restricted free agency -- the Seahawks' first-round draft pick, the sixth overall selection in the 2010 draft.

Even though the Seahawks also have the 14th overall pick, which they acquired last year from the Broncos for the second-round pick that became cornerback Alphonso Smith, the Broncos apparently aren't interested in talking trade. Instead, Denver wants the Seahawks to sign Marshall to an offer sheet -- at which time the Broncos would have seven days to decide whether to match or to accept Seattle's pick in round one, the sixth overall pick in the draft.

So what should the Seahawks do? As we suggested in a recent item at SportingNews.com, they should offer the 14th overall pick (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-03-08/10-pack-cowboys-redskins-oddly-quiet-during-first-few-days-nfl-free-agency) to any team that is able to finagle Marshall for a selection in the bottom half of round one.

More specifically, the Seahawks should offer the opportunity to the Chargers, who hold the 28th pick in the first round.

The steps are simple. San Diego would sign Marshall to an offer sheet containing terms to which the Seahawks know Marshall will agree. (A poison pill should be included to ensure that the Broncos won't match the offer; arguably, a poison pill must be included (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/09/jerry-jones-wades-into-poison-pill-minefield/) to head off an eventual accusation of collusion from the NFLPA.)

The offer sheet would include a provision that defers for five days or after the deal becomes effective the payment of any money, so that the Chargers never have to actually cut a check to Marshall.

Then, after the offer sheet isn't matched and Marshall becomes a Charger and the 28th overall pick flows from San Diego to Denver, the Chargers would send Marshall to Seattle for the 14th overall pick.

There would be no salary cap consequences, since there is no salary cap. (Also, we vaguely recall similar sign-and-trade arrangements from past years featuring structures that allow the deals to be made without a cap hit to the team that signs the player to the contract and then trades him.)

We're aware of no impediment to such a transaction. Though there's technically a bit of collusion at work, it's the kind of collusion that the NFLPA should welcome, since it ultimately encourages player movement. In the end, the Chargers get Marshall out of the division, they move from No. 28 to No. 14 in round one, and the Chargers have the satisfaction of sticking it to an arch rival.

We know it sounds too good to be true, and we're in the process of asking around to see if any portion of the CBA prevents such a transaction. But it strikes us as a simple and easy way to get around Denver's apparent refusal to take the 14th overall pick for Marshall -- and the mere possibility of such a move might be all the Seahawks need to soften up the Broncos to take pick No. 14 instead of pick No. 6.

Nomad
03-11-2010, 09:33 AM
On Marshall, Seahawks should consider an offer sheet end run (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/on-marshall-seahawks-should-consider-an-offer-sheet-end-run/)

Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2010 9:14 AM ET
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/assets_c/2010/03/nfl_marshall-thumb-250x185-7031.jpg (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/nfl_marshall.jpg)After word emerged that the Seahawks were interested in receiver Brandon Marshall, multiple reports surfaced that the Broncos will consider nothing less than that to which they're entitled under the rules of restricted free agency -- the Seahawks' first-round draft pick, the sixth overall selection in the 2010 draft.

Even though the Seahawks also have the 14th overall pick, which they acquired last year from the Broncos for the second-round pick that became cornerback Alphonso Smith, the Broncos apparently aren't interested in talking trade. Instead, Denver wants the Seahawks to sign Marshall to an offer sheet -- at which time the Broncos would have seven days to decide whether to match or to accept Seattle's pick in round one, the sixth overall pick in the draft.

So what should the Seahawks do? As we suggested in a recent item at SportingNews.com, they should offer the 14th overall pick (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-03-08/10-pack-cowboys-redskins-oddly-quiet-during-first-few-days-nfl-free-agency) to any team that is able to finagle Marshall for a selection in the bottom half of round one.

More specifically, the Seahawks should offer the opportunity to the Chargers, who hold the 28th pick in the first round.

The steps are simple. San Diego would sign Marshall to an offer sheet containing terms to which the Seahawks know Marshall will agree. (A poison pill should be included to ensure that the Broncos won't match the offer; arguably, a poison pill must be included (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/09/jerry-jones-wades-into-poison-pill-minefield/) to head off an eventual accusation of collusion from the NFLPA.)

The offer sheet would include a provision that defers for five days or after the deal becomes effective the payment of any money, so that the Chargers never have to actually cut a check to Marshall.

Then, after the offer sheet isn't matched and Marshall becomes a Charger and the 28th overall pick flows from San Diego to Denver, the Chargers would send Marshall to Seattle for the 14th overall pick.

There would be no salary cap consequences, since there is no salary cap. (Also, we vaguely recall similar sign-and-trade arrangements from past years featuring structures that allow the deals to be made without a cap hit to the team that signs the player to the contract and then trades him.)

We're aware of no impediment to such a transaction. Though there's technically a bit of collusion at work, it's the kind of collusion that the NFLPA should welcome, since it ultimately encourages player movement. In the end, the Chargers get Marshall out of the division, they move from No. 28 to No. 14 in round one, and the Chargers have the satisfaction of sticking it to an arch rival.

We know it sounds too good to be true, and we're in the process of asking around to see if any portion of the CBA prevents such a transaction. But it strikes us as a simple and easy way to get around Denver's apparent refusal to take the 14th overall pick for Marshall -- and the mere possibility of such a move might be all the Seahawks need to soften up the Broncos to take pick No. 14 instead of pick No. 6.

Now this is confusing! So what do the BRONCOS get??

Northman
03-11-2010, 09:34 AM
Way to go Mike, way to give them ideas on how to screw the Broncos. Woohoo! lol

Northman
03-11-2010, 09:34 AM
Now this is confusing! So what do the BRONCOS get??

Not a ******* thing. :lol:

Nomad
03-11-2010, 09:36 AM
Not a ******* thing. :lol:

I thought I read nothing good for the BRONCOS, but how could this scenerio possibly happen! I don't get it!

Northman
03-11-2010, 09:41 AM
I thought I read nothing good for the BRONCOS, but how could this scenerio possibly happen! I don't get it!

Basically, it would almost be like when NY and SD traded Rivers for Manning in the draft. The idea is that SD would offer a contract to Brandon, sign him and then trade him to Seattle for the 14th overall pick. But, Florio might have a problem when he uses SD as the goat here. If SD were to sign Brandon i wouldnt see them letting him go. Thats like adding more fire to the pit anyway. Could you imagine seeing Marshall and Jackson twice a year? Throw that with Charles and Thomas twice a year and the Broncos would be bottom feeders for quite a long time. :tsk:

yardog
03-11-2010, 09:42 AM
Now this is confusing! So what do the BRONCOS get??

The 28th pick.

Traveler
03-11-2010, 09:57 AM
Or, keep him on the tender, then franchise him and then franchise him.

This is what my gut says will happen. I've said it before, BM is more than likely to be with us in 2010.

I'm also one that believes if Denver can get value for him, let him go. But ONLY if they get value for him.

Traveler
03-11-2010, 10:01 AM
On Marshall, Seahawks should consider an offer sheet end run (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/on-marshall-seahawks-should-consider-an-offer-sheet-end-run/)

Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2010 9:14 AM ET
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/assets_c/2010/03/nfl_marshall-thumb-250x185-7031.jpg (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/nfl_marshall.jpg)After word emerged that the Seahawks were interested in receiver Brandon Marshall, multiple reports surfaced that the Broncos will consider nothing less than that to which they're entitled under the rules of restricted free agency -- the Seahawks' first-round draft pick, the sixth overall selection in the 2010 draft.

Even though the Seahawks also have the 14th overall pick, which they acquired last year from the Broncos for the second-round pick that became cornerback Alphonso Smith, the Broncos apparently aren't interested in talking trade. Instead, Denver wants the Seahawks to sign Marshall to an offer sheet -- at which time the Broncos would have seven days to decide whether to match or to accept Seattle's pick in round one, the sixth overall pick in the draft.

So what should the Seahawks do? As we suggested in a recent item at SportingNews.com, they should offer the 14th overall pick (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-03-08/10-pack-cowboys-redskins-oddly-quiet-during-first-few-days-nfl-free-agency) to any team that is able to finagle Marshall for a selection in the bottom half of round one.

More specifically, the Seahawks should offer the opportunity to the Chargers, who hold the 28th pick in the first round.

The steps are simple. San Diego would sign Marshall to an offer sheet containing terms to which the Seahawks know Marshall will agree. (A poison pill should be included to ensure that the Broncos won't match the offer; arguably, a poison pill must be included (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/09/jerry-jones-wades-into-poison-pill-minefield/) to head off an eventual accusation of collusion from the NFLPA.)

The offer sheet would include a provision that defers for five days or after the deal becomes effective the payment of any money, so that the Chargers never have to actually cut a check to Marshall.

Then, after the offer sheet isn't matched and Marshall becomes a Charger and the 28th overall pick flows from San Diego to Denver, the Chargers would send Marshall to Seattle for the 14th overall pick.

There would be no salary cap consequences, since there is no salary cap. (Also, we vaguely recall similar sign-and-trade arrangements from past years featuring structures that allow the deals to be made without a cap hit to the team that signs the player to the contract and then trades him.)

We're aware of no impediment to such a transaction. Though there's technically a bit of collusion at work, it's the kind of collusion that the NFLPA should welcome, since it ultimately encourages player movement. In the end, the Chargers get Marshall out of the division, they move from No. 28 to No. 14 in round one, and the Chargers have the satisfaction of sticking it to an arch rival.

We know it sounds too good to be true, and we're in the process of asking around to see if any portion of the CBA prevents such a transaction. But it strikes us as a simple and easy way to get around Denver's apparent refusal to take the 14th overall pick for Marshall -- and the mere possibility of such a move might be all the Seahawks need to soften up the Broncos to take pick No. 14 instead of pick No. 6.


Won't happen. That's collusion pure and simple. Even if it did, my guess is that the NFL would probably award Seattle's #6 to us as a penalty.

Lonestar
03-11-2010, 10:48 AM
Won't happen. That's collusion pure and simple. Even if it did, my guess is that the NFL would probably award Seattle's #6 to us as a penalty.

Works for me. Actually would love to get SAN 28 and SEA 6. Could turn them into a lot of #2s and 3s. This year and next.

I do not know of anyone that wants to give him away without getting value for him.

Most folks see it like it is he may never mature and always be a wife beating away from missing 8+ games.
And let there be no doubt giving him a huge guaranteed contract will almost guarantee he has another FUBAR.

The only thing that has kept him in check the last couple of years is the promise of a huge payday. IMO


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

T.K.O.
03-11-2010, 11:20 AM
in that scenario,the chargers would more than likely just keep marshall.....now THAT would be sticking it to the broncos.rivers would "light it up" with a beast like marshall on the field.not to mention brandon would rub it in mcD's face when he torched us twice a year.
:mad:

arapaho2
03-11-2010, 11:37 AM
Anderson was nowhere close to Brandon in terms of importance on the field. Replace Anderson with Tatum, Clinton, Olandis, and you get the same result. Also, Mike doesnt have the history of baggage that Brandon has so thus thats why fans are concerned about paying big money to a guy who is just not able to learn from his mistakes. This dates back to his college days and he has yet to go one year without having some kind of issue both on and off the field. So your comparison with Anderson was weak sauce at best. Did that help explain it for you?


i disagree...anderson was our starting rb...just as marshall is our wr
also the anti marshall crowd is saying marshall isnt important either since gaffney had a single good game in his 7 year career...who needs marshall

Northman
03-11-2010, 11:46 AM
i disagree...anderson was our starting rb...just as marshall is our wr
also the anti marshall crowd is saying marshall isnt important either since gaffney had a single good game in his 7 year career...who needs marshall

Well, you've made my point for me Arap. If we replaced Anderson he was easily replaceable with another RB at the time. If we try and replace Marshall at this juncture who do we have? Gaffney isnt the guy despite his great day against a very bad defense.

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 01:11 PM
Come on North, most of the people 'concerned' about paying Brandon big money, don't even want him on the team at the $2.5 million tender offer, or franchised in '11 and '12. They are saying take a 2nd round pick for him, just get him off the team.

In most cases, the argument is "one more mistake and he's gone", but he's yet to be suspended for as long as Anderson, and Anderson was one puff away from a year long suspension and people didn't call for him to go, because he was beloved and the vocal minority currently have their mob mentality focused on Marshall (I'm curious who will be next).

As this is an uncapped year, and Bowlen claims there are no money problems with the team, he could give Marshall a long term contract, and give him is bonus money in such a way that isn't prorated for the life of the contract, so that even if he got suspended down the road, there would be no cap consequences. Or, keep him on the tender, then franchise him and then franchise him.

The point is that most of the people that want him gone, want him gone based on emotion, not based on production or value.


Great poinst, Tned. A comparison I have completely overlooked. :beer:

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 01:16 PM
Well, you've made my point for me Arap. If we replaced Anderson he was easily replaceable with another RB at the time. If we try and replace Marshall at this juncture who do we have? Gaffney isnt the guy despite his great day against a very bad defense.

Exactly. We can't replace Marshall's talent. That kind of player onlly comes around every once in a while, and getting him on your team through draft is how I was told (by these very boards) thats how you build a team, through the draft. Yet, when we draft top players, we trade them away or let them go. Seems thats what Shanahan was criticized for with some DL a number years back.

Marshall's talent is elite

LordTrychon
03-11-2010, 01:17 PM
How many of those other 'star' receivers were RFA's with first round tenders, vs. just being free agents that were signed. How many 1st round tendered RFA's have been signed to offere sheets, whether WRs or other positions? As far as I know, I think the number is zero.

While I have no doubt that Marhsall's history, and McDaniels action in week 17 has frightened some teams, the fact that non RFA's are moving is also likely indicative of concern about the CBA, and teams being unwilling to both give up first round compensation and a big contract for anyone.

I just made this point... elsewhere... Great point. I can't even think of others that have really even been getting interviews.

A few others agreed with my post. Thanks for making me look smart. :D

Northman
03-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Exactly. We can't replace Marshall's talent. That kind of player onlly comes around every once in a while, and getting him on your team through draft is how I was told (by these very boards) thats how you build a team, through the draft. Yet, when we draft top players, we trade them away or let them go. Seems thats what Shanahan was criticized for with some DL a number years back.

Marshall's talent is elite


Well, sometimes. Marshall is not the best example as he came with a lot of baggage. Again, im still believe that in order for us to move forward it means cutting Marshall loose despite his talents. Unfortuantely, Denver got unlucky with the elite receiver they got and have to move forward without him in my opinion.

Nomad
03-11-2010, 01:39 PM
We can play the 'what if ' game with players. I agree with North's take on this. Why is it that the Rooney's have told Ben one more **** up and you're gone, he's supposed to be the 'franchise QB' and he produces on the field. Perhaps teams to hold players accountable for their actions no matter what they produce on the field and I happen to agree with them. If Mr Bowlen is that set on Marshall then I would see him in the picture standing up for his receiver, as of now, he's not!!

And the asinine comment of fans being emotional is just that asinine and stupid but I take it with a grain of salt!

Denver Native (Carol)
03-11-2010, 01:52 PM
We can play the 'what if ' game with players. I agree with North's take on this. Why is it that the Rooney's have told Ben one more **** up and you're gone, he's supposed to be the 'franchise QB' and he produces on the field. Perhaps teams to hold players accountable for their actions no matter what they produce on the field and I happen to agree with them. If Mr Bowlen is that set on Marshall then I would see him in the picture standing up for his receiver, as of now, he's not!!

And the asinine comment of fans being emotional is just that asinine and stupid but I take it with a grain of salt!

I am not sure if the following would be considered that Pat is standing up for Brandon, but Pat did say the following:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/07/bowlen-would-like-to-keep-marshall/

Bowlen would like to keep Marshall
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 7, 2010 8:44 AM ET
Brandon Marshall is willing to stay in Denver, and owner Pat Bowlen is willing to keep him. Now it's Josh McDaniels' move.

In comments Saturday to Mike Klis of the Denver Post, Bowlen believes Marshall is going through a "maturing process."

"Personally, I saw change in his personality and approach to things [this past season]. He didn't have the same sort of attitude and anxiety that he's had," Bowlen said. "I personally would like to see him stay. And there's still a good possibility that could happen."

Marshall said recently he took some things too personally during the 2009 campaign, and vowed to go in whatever direction the Broncos choose this offseason.

Conventional wisdom says McDaniels wants Marshall out, and the receiver may only be saying the right things now to help his trade value. (A good idea.) But McDaniels strikes us as a pragmatist.

McD knows how valuable Marshall is to the team's offense, and he's not going to give him up for 50 cents on the dollar. The recent comments by Marshall and Bowlen give the head coach greater flexibility to drive a hard bargain.

Northman
03-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Marshall said recently he took some things too personally during the 2009 campaign, and vowed to go in whatever direction the Broncos choose this offseason.



Ive heard this song and dance before. I would say ill wait to see it too believe it but ive been doing that the last 2 years. Again, nice talent but a little too late in my opinion and is only going to be a bigger problem if he gets the cash he wants. He has learned nothing in 4 years with the Broncos.

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 02:43 PM
This whole collusional idea coming from Foolorio isnt going to take place.

The only way a trade of picks will help their cause is for them to come off the 6th pick. Not the 14th.

IF the Seahawks trade away their 6th pick to a team lower in the draft, then they have a viable option.

They trade the 6th to, lets say SF for their 13th, 17th and a third.

If they did that, Denver would be awarded the 14th pick.

Afterwards, they may try and trade back up to another spot, say the Browns or the Chiefs using what they now have at their disposal.

A deal like the one FOOLorio is suggesting, would end up being deemed as collusional by the league, and I agree with Traveler, we would be awarded the 6th selection, and the Chargers/Seahawks would be penalized.


Besides, if SD put in a poison pill, it better be a wide ranging one. If they put in something like, "if Brandon plays more than four games at Invescoe field in a single year, his entire contract becomes guaranteed", then we could match that, then trade him away to someone else, or sit him a year then trade him away next year.(at a loss)

My thoughts are Brandon would remove the poison pill.

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 02:50 PM
Ive heard this song and dance before. I would say ill wait to see it too believe it but ive been doing that the last 2 years. Again, nice talent but a little too late in my opinion and is only going to be a bigger problem if he gets the cash he wants. He has learned nothing in 4 years with the Broncos.

Well, he will have a choice should no one sign him.

When youre facing 2.5 mil for a single year, all of a sudden 9.5 mil a year from the Broncos looks mighty nice.

The Broncos are going to guarantee money, but he wont get it up front.
If Denver signs him to 18 million guaranteed with behaviorial clauses, and he got most of that up front, should Brandon then get in trouble, the Broncos arent going to want to go chasing after their money in order to get it back.

Instead, they have the signing bonus guaranteed with the same clauses, but dont actually hand him the money until he gets further into the contract....like say, a third of the signing bonus over the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of the contract.

Northman
03-11-2010, 03:01 PM
Well, he will have a choice should no one sign him.

When youre facing 2.5 mil for a single year, all of a sudden 9.5 mil a year from the Broncos looks mighty nice.

The Broncos are going to guarantee money, but he wont get it up front.
If Denver signs him to 18 million guaranteed with behaviorial clauses, and he got most of that up front, should Brandon then get in trouble, the Broncos arent going to want to go chasing after their money in order to get it back.

Instead, they have the signing bonus guaranteed with the same clauses, but dont actually hand him the money until he gets further into the contract....like say, a third of the signing bonus over the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of the contract.


Maybe, maybe not. I only point to Randy Moss when he was given up by the Raiders. Moss essentially put no effort in while in Oakland and his stock dropped even though his talent level didnt. If Brandon gets stuck here and hates it (even with a somewhat better payday) he may just pack it in as far as putting more effort into it until Denver is forced to let him go for peanuts. At that point Denver will have to weigh whether he is worth the headache which he is most likely to cause.

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 03:04 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I only point to Randy Moss when he was given up by the Raiders. Moss essentially put no effort in while in Oakland and his stock dropped even though his talent level didnt. If Brandon gets stuck here and hates it (even with a somewhat better payday) he may just pack it in as far as putting more effort into it until Denver is forced to let him go for peanuts. At that point Denver will have to weigh whether he is worth the headache which he is most likely to cause.

All possibilities.:beer:

T.K.O.
03-11-2010, 03:17 PM
another possibility is that brandon gets his deal done in denver and lights it up even more than in previous years .because he will finally feel that his hard work and talent are being properly compensated ! and his attitude "issues" will be gone as well
well....it is possible.

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 03:35 PM
another possibility is that brandon gets his deal done in denver and lights it up even more than in previous years .because he will finally feel that his hard work and talent are being properly compensated ! and his attitude "issues" will be gone as well
well....it is possible.

Cant disagree thats a possibility.


Going back to the thread topic though, I think its a little presumptuous.

There not only silence concerning Brandon, theres silence concerning ALL the RFAs.

Anyone offering anything for Merriman, Jackson, Doom, etc,etc,etc?


Brandon is a very, very, very productive player. He is an IMPACT player.

While Seattle has opened the door, I know there are others waiting and watching, hoping something opens up a door to get Brandon, especially on the cheap.

On the cheap taint happenin though...GO JOSH! heh heh:salute:

HORSEPOWER 56
03-11-2010, 03:47 PM
I think it's funny that Klis assumes that nothing will happen because it hasn't happened yet... Wait wasn't it him and others like him saying that more than likely this could play all the way out until the draft before a trade gets done?

We're 6 days into FA and because nobody has fallen out of their chair to give up a 1st rounder for Marshall, that nothing will ever happen?

As Tned said, we're better with him on the field but frankly, I want Marshall (and Scheffler) gone so there will be no more excuses about the non-team players causing drama and being distractions. McDaniels can then succeed or fail with his own guys on his own merit. If he doesn't want to pay Marshall, fine, he can win (or lose) without him.

No more excuses, no more drama, win or lose. It's all on the coach, now.

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 03:51 PM
Well, he will have a choice should no one sign him.

When youre facing 2.5 mil for a single year, all of a sudden 9.5 mil a year from the Broncos looks mighty nice.

The Broncos are going to guarantee money, but he wont get it up front.
If Denver signs him to 18 million guaranteed with behaviorial clauses, and he got most of that up front, should Brandon then get in trouble, the Broncos arent going to want to go chasing after their money in order to get it back.

Instead, they have the signing bonus guaranteed with the same clauses, but dont actually hand him the money until he gets further into the contract....like say, a third of the signing bonus over the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of the contract.

No way he would sign that deal, nor would his agent recommend he do so. Teams took chances on guys like Pacman Jones and people out of prison like Mike Vick. Marshall isn't the worst person on the planet, and isnt' the worst in the NFL, and there is no reason for him to sign a contract like no other has signed.

Upfront money means you take a chance. Thats what guaranteed is. No other money in the NFL is guaranteed. If you don't want to take the chance on him, fine. but someone will. You can't just say "here's your money, but we are going to hold it." Nuh uh. No way that flies, and no way anyone accepts that.

Spiritguy
03-11-2010, 04:05 PM
The difference between Marshall, Pacman and Vick etc.. is that those deals were done when the CBA was in place. The teams knew where they stood. Part of the wait and see approach by teams to all the RFA from where I'm sitting is they are unsure of the future and questioning handing out big contracts that have a loss of 1st rd pick associated with them. That may feel like double jeopardy to them.

The closest thing to that up to this point has been the Bears and Peppers and the cost of that contract to me was just foolish and didn't have a draft pick attached to it.

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 04:11 PM
The difference between Marshall, Pacman and Vick etc.. is that those deals were done when the CBA was in place. The teams knew where they stood. Part of the wait and see approach by teams to all the RFA from where I'm sitting is they are unsure of the future and questioning handing out big conracts that have a loss of 1st rd pick associated with them. That may feel like double jeopardy to them.

But there will be a new CBA.

Point I was making is, no one is going to agree to 15 million guaranteed money, and then let the Broncos 'hold' it and distribute it out as they see fit. No way. Thats not guaranteed money. Marshall and his agent aren't going to buy into that junk. If thats how you are going to try and treat your players, then let them go.

Philly just gave Vick his roster bonus. Cinci is looking at Pac Man. Henry was back in the NFL (RIp) after his suspension and possibility of more suspension. Teams will give Marshall a chance. Just because Seattle hasn't, just proves that my guess is closer to being right, than wrong.

That the trade won't happen until the draft, and that we will not get a 1st for him. We've shown tht he's going to be a bargain for someone. Seattle probably let him know exactly what they were planning when Marshall visited.

arapaho2
03-11-2010, 06:33 PM
Well, you've made my point for me Arap. If we replaced Anderson he was easily replaceable with another RB at the time. If we try and replace Marshall at this juncture who do we have? Gaffney isnt the guy despite his great day against a very bad defense.


ahhh ok...im on the side of marshalls a huge talent that in no way can gaffney replace or match

if thats what your saying

Northman
03-11-2010, 06:35 PM
I think it's funny that Klis assumes that nothing will happen because it hasn't happened yet... Wait wasn't it him and others like him saying that more than likely this could play all the way out until the draft before a trade gets done?

We're 6 days into FA and because nobody has fallen out of their chair to give up a 1st rounder for Marshall, that nothing will ever happen?

As Tned said, we're better with him on the field but frankly, I want Marshall (and Scheffler) gone so there will be no more excuses about the non-team players causing drama and being distractions. McDaniels can then succeed or fail with his own guys on his own merit. If he doesn't want to pay Marshall, fine, he can win (or lose) without him.

No more excuses, no more drama, win or lose. It's all on the coach, now.

It will be on the coach regardless this year. But i get your point. :D

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 06:44 PM
But there will be a new CBA.

Point I was making is, no one is going to agree to 15 million guaranteed money, and then let the Broncos 'hold' it and distribute it out as they see fit. No way. Thats not guaranteed money. Marshall and his agent aren't going to buy into that junk. If thats how you are going to try and treat your players, then let them go.

Philly just gave Vick his roster bonus. Cinci is looking at Pac Man. Henry was back in the NFL (RIp) after his suspension and possibility of more suspension. Teams will give Marshall a chance. Just because Seattle hasn't, just proves that my guess is closer to being right, than wrong.

That the trade won't happen until the draft, and that we will not get a 1st for him. We've shown tht he's going to be a bargain for someone. Seattle probably let him know exactly what they were planning when Marshall visited.

There will be salaries that Brandon will be getting.

And it doesnt mean Denver wont give him some of the guaranteed money up front.......it just means they wont give it all.

All Brandon has to do is keep his nose clean, and he gets the money.....guaranteed.

And BTW, there are PLENTY of contracts in the NFL where players dont get all their guaranteed money up front, even if they dont have conduct issues.

Its a matter of helping the teams stomach their salaries. The money is guaranteed, its simply the distribution is spread out over time. Thats why some teams like Washington have so much dead money on the books even when players arent playing for them anymore.

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 07:06 PM
All Brandon has to do is keep his nose clean, and he gets the money.....guaranteed.



Thats not guaranteed money. I see what you are saying, but you want to give him guaranteed money, with clauses. The difference between what you are saying and what has been done PLENTY of times in the NFL, are ENTIRELY different things. What happens if something at practice happens like this last year? Take away his guaranteed money? Keep it? Not distribute it out? What about not getting along with the coach? Signing bonuses are guaranteed, unless of retirement.

So if you want to distribute it out to him over a time period, I get that. But you can't then say "well, we'll keep this because you haven't been a good boy. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and we have it."

Thats like saying you'll give him an incentive laden contract. Although I understand your points on wanting that, its just not going to happen. Every player in the NFL knows THEY are the one putting up the risk. They want their guaranteed money.

Even the "team player" Orton, said that every player dreams of the day they go UFA. Its not because he knows that lets him go to his favorite ball-club. Its for that up-front money.

Tned
03-11-2010, 07:56 PM
This is what my gut says will happen. I've said it before, BM is more than likely to be with us in 2010.

I'm also one that believes if Denver can get value for him, let him go. But ONLY if they get value for him.

I believe he is worth the risk of keeping, but I agree with you that if we move him, it has to be for value. I would hate to see him not get an offer, have Marshall sign the $2+ million tender offer, and then do something like trade him for a second, or second and third.

The fact is that the odds are VERY low that even with a mid round first that we will get anyone with production close to what he brings the Broncos, and those odds go down drastically with lower picks.

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 08:12 PM
Thats not guaranteed money. I see what you are saying, but you want to give him guaranteed money, with clauses. The difference between what you are saying and what has been done PLENTY of times in the NFL, are ENTIRELY different things. What happens if something at practice happens like this last year? Take away his guaranteed money? Keep it? Not distribute it out? What about not getting along with the coach? Signing bonuses are guaranteed, unless of retirement.

So if you want to distribute it out to him over a time period, I get that. But you can't then say "well, we'll keep this because you haven't been a good boy. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and we have it."

Thats like saying you'll give him an incentive laden contract. Although I understand your points on wanting that, its just not going to happen. Every player in the NFL knows THEY are the one putting up the risk. They want their guaranteed money.

Even the "team player" Orton, said that every player dreams of the day they go UFA. Its not because he knows that lets him go to his favorite ball-club. Its for that up-front money.


Why do you think no one is clamoring for him Ravage?

No one is going to give him guaranteed money when they know one slip up could cost him a year long suspension.

Where is the guaranteed money going then?

NOBODY is going to guarantee him anything without good conduct clauses in his contract. NO ONE.

To guarantee him that money without behaviorial stipulations would be an ignorant decision on ANY teams part.

Brandon is not going to get big money up front. The signing bonus will be spread out and while guaranteed with good behavior, he will not get the money until he makes it through each year. The Broncos would still have to pay SOME should he screw up, but it would go to an arbitrator and the language and stipulations of the contract would be broken down in that case. And the protection of the later payouts would be, should Brandon mess up, then the Broncos go to retrieve some of the guaranteed money paid out, and Brandon no longer has it.

Tned
03-11-2010, 08:44 PM
Why do you think no one is clamoring for him Ravage?

No one is going to give him guaranteed money when they know one slip up could cost him a year long suspension.



Why is nobody clamoring for Dumervil? His off field problems?

Why is nobody clamoring for Vincent Jackson? His looming year long suspension?

Why is.... :confused:

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 10:19 PM
Why do you think no one is clamoring for him Ravage?

No one is going to give him guaranteed money when they know one slip up could cost him a year long suspension.

Where is the guaranteed money going then?

NOBODY is going to guarantee him anything without good conduct clauses in his contract. NO ONE.

To guarantee him that money without behaviorial stipulations would be an ignorant decision on ANY teams part.

Brandon is not going to get big money up front. The signing bonus will be spread out and while guaranteed with good behavior, he will not get the money until he makes it through each year. The Broncos would still have to pay SOME should he screw up, but it would go to an arbitrator and the language and stipulations of the contract would be broken down in that case. And the protection of the later payouts would be, should Brandon mess up, then the Broncos go to retrieve some of the guaranteed money paid out, and Brandon no longer has it.


Why is nobody clamoring for Dumervil? His off field problems?

Why is nobody clamoring for Vincent Jackson? His looming year long suspension?

Why is.... :confused:

Tned already answered your question for me, but thats why. NO one, with a first round tender, is getting contracts right now. NOT ONE PLAYER, at any position, with a first round tender has signed.

So why would I think that one of the most dynamic players at his position, has signed a big contract just a few days in?

Marshall's contract, will be somewhere near what Fitz signed in 2008. 15 million up front and a 2 million dollar salary.

Now, do I think there won't be any behavior clauses? I don't know, I would speculate there will be. But there is no WAY anyone signs a contract that only gives him the 'guaranteed money' if he reaches their incentives. Thats not guaranteed money.

dogfish
03-11-2010, 10:51 PM
I believe he is worth the risk of keeping, but I agree with you that if we move him, it has to be for value. I would hate to see him not get an offer, have Marshall sign the $2+ million tender offer, and then do something like trade him for a second, or second and third.

The fact is that the odds are VERY low that even with a mid round first that we will get anyone with production close to what he brings the Broncos, and those odds go down drastically with lower picks.

know what you're saying, but in all honesty i would MUCH rather get seattle's 2nd and 3rd than that #6 overall pick. . . not because of any inherent value in picks, but because of the way this year's draft looks to be playing out. . .

a high 2nd rounder like seattle's should be an ideal spot for us to grab someone who doesn't quite fit into the 1st round like, say, iupati, pouncey, odrick, kyle wilson, brandon spikes, etc etc. . .

a high 3rd could net us an interior OL like john jerry or JD walton. . .

in a deep draft that doesn't have a ton of off-the-charts, blue chip type prospects at the very top, we'd be better off with two fairly high picks than #6-- unless eric berry falls, who do we really want there that we can't probably get at 11? if you really want clausen you could get him there i'm sure, but i wouldn't spend six on him. . . the only other reason i can see that we'd want #6 is to take one of the top OT prospects-- and i'd kinda hate to trade marshall for a rookie right tackle who quite likely wouldn't play this year unless we trade harris for low value. . .

i'd rather stick at 11 and take mcclain or dez bryant, even coach's boy graham, and then still have three more picks in the top three rounds to beef up the lines or look at a quarterback. . .

WARHORSE
03-11-2010, 11:17 PM
Tned already answered your question for me, but thats why. NO one, with a first round tender, is getting contracts right now. NOT ONE PLAYER, at any position, with a first round tender has signed.

So why would I think that one of the most dynamic players at his position, has signed a big contract just a few days in?

Marshall's contract, will be somewhere near what Fitz signed in 2008. 15 million up front and a 2 million dollar salary.

Now, do I think there won't be any behavior clauses? I don't know, I would speculate there will be. But there is no WAY anyone signs a contract that only gives him the 'guaranteed money' if he reaches their incentives. Thats not guaranteed money.


Explain to us all then why Vick had to payback some of his guaranteed signing bonus.

Wasnt that guaranteed?

Plaxico?


Jones?

Ravage!!!
03-11-2010, 11:32 PM
Explain to us all then why Vick had to payback some of his guaranteed signing bonus.

Wasnt that guaranteed?

Plaxico?


Jones?

Jones?

You mean the guys that went to prison? Is that really the same thing that you are talking about? No.

You are saying that they give him 'guaranteed' money, but put incentives on them. If he matches the incentives, he gets the signing bonus as they dish it out. You are twisting.

As I said in the post, would I see some behavior clauses, sure. But the teams you just mentioned had to sue to have an arbitrator rule if they COULD get their money back. These guys went to prison. They even had to get a ruling from an arbitrator to see if Ricky Williams had to give a portion back after he quit. Point being, its not just as simple as you are making it out to be. Teams just can't arbitrarily 'keep' guaranteed money that is part of their base salary.

LordTrychon
03-12-2010, 07:57 AM
There will be salaries that Brandon will be getting.

And it doesnt mean Denver wont give him some of the guaranteed money up front.......it just means they wont give it all.

All Brandon has to do is keep his nose clean, and he gets the money.....guaranteed.

And BTW, there are PLENTY of contracts in the NFL where players dont get all their guaranteed money up front, even if they dont have conduct issues.

Its a matter of helping the teams stomach their salaries. The money is guaranteed, its simply the distribution is spread out over time. Thats why some teams like Washington have so much dead money on the books even when players arent playing for them anymore.

Deferred signing bonuses?

Isn't that why we got in trouble in the late 90s when building the stadium?

Guaranteed money is spread out over the cap... that doesn't mean it's still being paid... that's just how it affects the cap.

Tned
03-12-2010, 08:06 AM
know what you're saying, but in all honesty i would MUCH rather get seattle's 2nd and 3rd than that #6 overall pick. . . not because of any inherent value in picks, but because of the way this year's draft looks to be playing out. . .

a high 2nd rounder like seattle's should be an ideal spot for us to grab someone who doesn't quite fit into the 1st round like, say, iupati, pouncey, odrick, kyle wilson, brandon spikes, etc etc. . .

a high 3rd could net us an interior OL like john jerry or JD walton. . .

in a deep draft that doesn't have a ton of off-the-charts, blue chip type prospects at the very top, we'd be better off with two fairly high picks than #6-- unless eric berry falls, who do we really want there that we can't probably get at 11? if you really want clausen you could get him there i'm sure, but i wouldn't spend six on him. . . the only other reason i can see that we'd want #6 is to take one of the top OT prospects-- and i'd kinda hate to trade marshall for a rookie right tackle who quite likely wouldn't play this year unless we trade harris for low value. . .

i'd rather stick at 11 and take mcclain or dez bryant, even coach's boy graham, and then still have three more picks in the top three rounds to beef up the lines or look at a quarterback. . .

I understand what you're saying, and as most people know, draft boards are not my thing and I don't follow the NCAA, so except when I read someone like you talking about this draft, I wouldn't know if it is a deep one or not.

My comment was more fundamental, and that is that top 15 picks are not close to sure things, but 2nd and 3rd round picks have a MUCH lower percentage of becoming impact players. If we take our number one offensive weapon and toss him, we need to try and get something close to equal production back on the field.

We should be sitting here with two first round picks and lots of flexibility, but this years first was recklessly traded away for Smith -- which I should point out is an example of a McDaniels 2nd round pick, and we could look at Quinn as an example of a 3rd round pick (I think he was a 3rd, but don't have time to look it up).

Denver Native (Carol)
03-15-2010, 03:24 PM
With Seattle signing this wide receiver, is Brandon out of their picture now?
http://twitter.com/ADAM_SCHEFTER

Seahawks have signed tight end Chris Baker to a two-year deal and wide receiver Ruvell Martin to a one-year deal.

Tned
03-15-2010, 03:27 PM
With Seattle signing this wide receiver, is Brandon out of their picture now?
http://twitter.com/ADAM_SCHEFTER

Seahawks have signed tight end Chris Baker to a two-year deal and wide receiver Ruvell Martin to a one-year deal.

No, he's a 5th or 6th string, special teams type guy. Signing him would not impact whether or not they tried to sign or trade for Marshall or another play making receiver.

Buff
03-15-2010, 03:30 PM
No, he's a 5th or 6th string, special teams type guy. Signing him would not impact whether or not they tried to sign or trade for Marshall or another play making receiver.

I agree, however, typically teams go after their big targets first and then work their way down to lesser players as free agency progresses. So, this doesn't mean Seattle won't sign him to an offer sheet, but it's looking less and less likely with each passing day. Especially now that they're targeting other guys at the same position.

Tned
03-15-2010, 03:33 PM
I agree, however, typically teams go after their big targets first and then work their way down to lesser players as free agency progresses. So, this doesn't mean Seattle won't sign him to an offer sheet, but it's looking less and less likely with each passing day. Especially now that they're targeting other guys at the same position.

Agreed. Once he didn't get an immediate offer, I figure the liklyhood of them offering him a contract dropped way off. Much more likely they will try and work out a trade.

I just wanted to let Carol know that Ruvell wasn't an alternative for Marshall, as he might not even make the team, or the field as a receiver.

JDL
03-16-2010, 12:52 AM
1st of all, RFA doesn't even kick off until April typically... teams are too focused on draft preparations right now and will wait as long as possible to go after RFAs. Typically in the last 2 weeks of RFA (where you can still sign them) is when most teams put in their offer sheets.

2nd of all, some fans seem to have their head in the clouds about what can actually be received for Marshall... 6th pick lol... dreamers... that's nice and all... but the NFL doesn't really work that way. Draft picks = very cheap long-term contracts and that is VERY important to NFL owners. It is hard for personnel guys to make moves that will not only cost long-term cost-effective contracts but tie you to a guy for big money, particularly one with Brandon's past.

The reality is that we have the leverage, I wouldn't count on a very high 1st rd pick and maybe not one at all, but you CAN get good value without getting a 1st rd pick... but it would imo require two quality starters (David Harris types) and a replacement for Marshall or some combination of 2-4th rd picks and quality player package. You can get creative and realistically the draft is a crap shoot.. I would just say that Marshall is a great player and it is tough to part with him, I can see how some fans would struggle wtih that, but the reality is that he essentially quit on the team in a situation that was playoff-like... competitors, great players don't pass up those situations, their competitive nature and loyalty to their teammates is too strong... Marshall did that and I no longer consider him an integral part of the team which isn't to say you have to trade him, but if a fair value deal comes up, creative or not... you really just take it. Marshall is not the difference between this team being a championship team and not being one... that's the bottomline.

#1dolphinfan
03-16-2010, 03:25 AM
My dad is a big seahawks fan and I would mind seeing him in Seattle there is only 3 NFL teams I wouldn't mind seeing him on and that is Seattle, Denver, or Miami