PDA

View Full Version : Zach Thomas wants Fins to get Marshall



T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 10:35 AM
Zach Thomas wants Fins to get Marshall
March, 11, 2010 Mar 115:07PM ETEmail Print Share By Tim GrahamZach Thomas will donate his brain to science some day. For now, he's willing to share the thoughts rattling around inside it.

The all-decade inside linebacker for the Miami Dolphins was a guest on Miami sports-radio station WQAM and tackled several topics about his former team with host Sid Rosenberg.

Thomas advised the Dolphins to sign Denver Broncos restricted free agent Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet and to bring back veteran pass-rusher Jason Taylor to avoid a leadership depletion like the New England Patriots suffered last year.

The Dolphins have needed a go-to receiver for years. Rosenberg asked Thomas what he would say if Bill Parcells approached him about Marshall.

"Do it now before anybody changes their mind," Thomas said per Palm Beach Post reporter Brian Biggane.

The Broncos placed a first-round tender on Marshall, tempting other teams to sign him. The Dolphins own the 12th pick of the draft.

"With Brandon Marshall it's about money," Thomas said. "If you pay the guy well, he's going to play hard. He even played hard last year. He's got a lot of pride, and he can be a little selfish, but good players are selfish. Look at a guy like Terrell [Owens]. Guys can go to extremes. But Brandon Marshall is a proven player. He's still young, and I feel he's best in the league right now."

Thomas claimed Marshall would make all of Miami's receivers better -- even Ted Ginn. Thomas emphasized that Marshall is a proven commodity, unlike someone like Oklahoma State receiver Dez Bryant, whom the Dolphins could draft instead.

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 10:37 AM
"With Brandon Marshall it's about money," Thomas said. "If you pay the guy well, he's going to play hard. He even played hard last year. He's got a lot of pride, and he can be a little selfish, but good players are selfish. Look at a guy like Terrell [Owens]. Guys can go to extremes. But Brandon Marshall is a proven player. He's still young, and I feel he's best in the league right now."



very true....if we pony up the $$$$ he would be happy in denver.
and i think the "on field" issues would be solved.
the big question is whether or not he can stay on the right side of the law and the league ?

Tned
03-12-2010, 10:43 AM
Thomas, who knows a little more than me, makes the same case I have made. Marshall makes every receiver on the field better, and conversely, when Marshall is off the field, he makes every receiver worse.

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 10:50 AM
Thomas, who knows a little more than me, makes the same case I have made. Marshall makes every receiver on the field better, and conversely, when Marshall is off the field, he makes every receiver worse.

except gaffney;)

Lancane
03-12-2010, 11:24 AM
Yeah, and I am sure the majority of the fans would treat him better there at this point. And I happen to agree with Thomas on everything he stated. A big plus is Miami has a better quarterback then Denver and Marshall would be a monster in that system.

CoachChaz
03-12-2010, 11:26 AM
except gaffney;)

Yeah, that rookie Eddie Royal didnt do too bad against Oakland when Marshall was suspended. I like Brandon on the field and I'd love to keep him here, but let's not pretend no one else can step up when he's no in there.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 11:33 AM
Yeah, that rookie Eddie Royal didnt do too bad against Oakland when Marshall was suspended. I like Brandon on the field and I'd love to keep him here, but let's not pretend no one else can step up when he's no in there.

Like who, Royal? Who was nowhere to be seen last year or Gaffney the one game wonder? Sorry Chaz, but a Marshall-esque receiver is not easily replaced...and the fandom will realize that if, or when he is gone.

CoachChaz
03-12-2010, 11:36 AM
Like who, Royal? Who was nowhere to be seen last year or Gaffney the one game wonder? Sorry Chaz, but a Marshall-esque receiver is not easily replaced...and the fandom will realize that if, or when he is gone.

I didnt say he was "easily" replaced. Just saying that other have stepped up and performed admirably when Brandon has been out of the lineup

Ravage!!!
03-12-2010, 11:36 AM
Both of those guys basically did it for ONE game.... Gaffney against a horrible defense that didn't even attempt to man-up on him with their best guy.

Thomas is dead on. Despite people not liking him around here, the guy plays HARD on the field. He gives it everything, and makes plays. Thomas knows the football players in the NFL, and stated that he feels Marshall is the BEST in the NFL while some around here try to make it sound like he's not even a top guy, and can be replaced by Gaffney.

Its going to be hard to see him play for someone else knowing that he SHOULD have been in a Broncos uniform.

Northman
03-12-2010, 11:41 AM
Give us a first rounder and he's yours boys.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 11:47 AM
I didnt say he was "easily" replaced. Just saying that other have stepped up and performed admirably when Brandon has been out of the lineup

I would have to argue the point, Royal did so when we had Cutler who is by far a better and more talented quarterback then Orton, and no less in a very different system. But since Cutler's exit and Shanahans', Eddie Royal has done little. One would think that with the cast Orton and McDaniels had last year that the offense would have been far more explosive then it was. Marshall in an around about way, was our offense last year...take out Brandon and we were likely to be a 4-12 team IMHO. Gaffney, Stokely, Royal and Lloyd while solid at times are not even together on the same level as Marshall. So there is no real argument there, that is the reason that almost every draft guru has us taking Dez Bryant if we trade Marshall. Kiper said even if Denver did not trade Marshall that Bryant is better then the rest of our receiving corps. give Marshall, really can not argue with that...and I like Royal, I just feel that he is wasted here with a noodle-armed quarterback and in a system that does not harness his overall abilities.

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 11:59 AM
marshall had his best year with noodle arm at the helm....
and yes if we trade him others will take up most of the "slack" if not all.
we may actually be forced to become a more balanced and thereby overall better team because of it.
sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet !:salute:
that being said if we pay marshall enough,he will be happy here and could help the team.

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 12:10 PM
I would have to argue the point, Royal did so when we had Cutler who is by far a better and more talented quarterback then Orton, and no less in a very different system. But since Cutler's exit and Shanahans', Eddie Royal has done little. One would think that with the cast Orton and McDaniels had last year that the offense would have been far more explosive then it was. Marshall in an around about way, was our offense last year...take out Brandon and we were likely to be a 4-12 team IMHO. Gaffney, Stokely, Royal and Lloyd while solid at times are not even together on the same level as Marshall. So there is no real argument there, that is the reason that almost every draft guru has us taking Dez Bryant if we trade Marshall. Kiper said even if Denver did not trade Marshall that Bryant is better then the rest of our receiving corps. give Marshall, really can not argue with that...and I like Royal, I just feel that he is wasted here with a noodle-armed quarterback and in a system that does not harness his overall abilities.


not to start another debate here but......
kyle orton threw for more yards than cutler in 09'
had 21 td's vs 12 ints with a qb rating of 86.8

jay cutler had fewer yds ,27 tds vs 26 int's (+9 fumbles) and a rating of 76.8
he also QB'ed another losing season for his team (that ironically orton had a winning record with the previous year(s).
so it's not a given at this point that cutler is "far better"

Lancane
03-12-2010, 12:10 PM
marshall had his best year with noodle arm at the helm....
and yes if we trade him others will take up most of the "slack" if not all.
we may actually be forced to become a more balanced and thereby overall better team because of it.
sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet !:salute:
that being said if we pay marshall enough,he will be happy here and could help the team.

He had his best year with the said noodle-armed quarterback because he was key player of our offense, at least have an argument with such a statement...lol. It was not because Orton was a great quarterback, simply that getting the ball into Marshall's hands gave the Broncos the best chance of winning, plain and simple.

Forced to be more balanced? Where to you get that...without a focal talent the offensive unit will not get better, only worse. You're buying into the Belichick plan way too much, but there is a secret in New England...Tom Brady is actually very talented as is a couple others on their roster. Every good offense has a focalized player, someone who stands out and is a gamechanger, a great offense has more then one. Who does Denver have without Brandon Marshall? Buckhalter, Moreno, Gaffney, Stokley, Royal, Orton? Moreno could be a difference maker, time will tell...but of the others, as of now most would be backups or plug-in starters on other rosters. That is not balance, but horrid football management.

And McDaniels' better hope he whips up one hell of a Mile High Omelette within the next two seasons or his egg-breaking days in Denver will be done.

WARHORSE
03-12-2010, 12:13 PM
If Brandon gets his contract and he wants to play hard here and stay out of trouble, we definitely want the man in orange and blue.


I dont believe Brandon has played his best yet. The kid is still YOUNG.


But I do believe that if he learns accountability without getting pissed about it, and he can set an example that makes coach Josh happy, then he will realize even better years the next three to four years.


With all that being said..............I wish he would become a monk cause I still have this uneasy feeling that little ole Michi is going to be his undoing.


I hope not.:tsk:

Lancane
03-12-2010, 12:17 PM
not to start another debate here but......
kyle orton threw for more yards than cutler in 09'
had 21 td's vs 12 ints with a qb rating of 86.8

jay cutler had fewer yds ,27 tds vs 26 int's (+9 fumbles) and a rating of 76.8
he also QB'ed another losing season for his team (that ironically orton had a winning record with the previous year(s).
so it's not a given at this point that cutler is "far better"

Hahahahaha....:laugh:

Orton had Brandon Marshall, take Marshall out and his stats go way the hell down...and who did Cutler have to throw to? Yeah, great argument. Plus we can argue who had a better offensive line and so forth. Let us not forget that while Orton was in Chicago that they had a top-flight defense and it was on the coat-tails of that defense that he has the win-loss record he had. Sorry, but Orton was not the cause and effect of Chicago's success, nor will he be that here in Denver.

roomemp
03-12-2010, 12:27 PM
Hahahahaha....:laugh:

Orton had Brandon Marshall, take Marshall out and his stats go way the hell down...and who did Cutler have to throw to? Yeah, great argument. Plus we can argue who had a better offensive line and so forth. Let us not forget that while Orton was in Chicago that they had a top-flight defense and it was on the coat-tails of that defense that he has the win-loss record he had. Sorry, but Orton was not the cause and effect of Chicago's success, nor will he be that here in Denver.


So you are saying Cutler's stats (When he was a Bronco) were padded because of Marshall. If Orton threw for what he threw for because of Marshall, I guess the same applies to Jay too. It was Marshall all along. Cutler and Orton just went along for the ride.

Ravage!!!
03-12-2010, 12:49 PM
I know that Orton won when our defense held the other teams to ZERO points in teh second half. Not so much after that.

Everyone knows Cutler is a better QB... lets not change THIS thread into that topic. If you want to debate that, take it to one of the other threads and bring it back up.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 12:50 PM
So you are saying Cutler's stats (When he was a Bronco) were padded because of Marshall. If Orton threw for what he threw for because of Marshall, I guess the same applies to Jay too. It was Marshall all along. Cutler and Orton just went along for the ride.

Again another bad argument, one could say that is so...but in truth because Marshall's numbers were in fact less with Cutler, it also stems to show that he was better about spreading the ball to his other receivers; Eddie Royal, Brandon Stokely...hell even Daniel Graham had better numbers in 08' with Cutler at the helm compared to Orton this past season. Cutler threw for more yards with near the same exact roster, give Lloyd and Gaffney. The only difference is that Orton had better overall running backs, but in fact in 08' the team had better overall rushing yards at seasons end.

So is Cutler better then Orton, I would tend to say...hell yes.

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 12:51 PM
take away jerry rice and montana was a "dilfer"......duh:confused:


aaaaaaaaand....i'm done !

Lancane
03-12-2010, 12:53 PM
I know that Orton won when our defense held the other teams to ZERO points in teh second half. Not so much after that.

Everyone knows Cutler is a better QB... lets not change THIS thread into that topic. If you want to debate that, take it to one of the other threads and bring it back up.

Proving the point that Orton rides the coat-tails of the defense for his win-loss record, and he is a mediocre quarterback at best. But you are right Rav, the thread went of topic...sorry...lol.

Lonestar
03-12-2010, 12:53 PM
Why Y'all dp. Not get that BM is a head is beyond me.

How can anyone expect a guy that is getting in to trouble making 400K to 2 mil. Expect to be less of a head case making 9 to 12 mil a year.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

roomemp
03-12-2010, 12:56 PM
These posts are on topic...... Marshall's value to a team. According to Lanecane Marshall makes Qb's ........Qb's (Orton and Cutler) do not make Marshall.....

I tend to disagree with that statement.......Someone has to get Marshall the ball to begin with (be that Orton or Cutler)

Marshall is a super talent but he cannot do it alone........The past three years he has caught over 100 balls and had 1,000 yards. In all three years the talent around him has aloud him to reach those stats. Saying that, Marshall is a great talent

roomemp
03-12-2010, 12:59 PM
Again another bad argument, one could say that is so...but in truth because Marshall's numbers were in fact less with Cutler, it also stems to show that he was better about spreading the ball to his other receivers; Eddie Royal, Brandon Stokely...hell even Daniel Graham had better numbers in 08' with Cutler at the helm compared to Orton this past season. Cutler threw for more yards with near the same exact roster, give Lloyd and Gaffney. The only difference is that Orton had better overall running backs, but in fact in 08' the team had better overall rushing yards at seasons end.

So is Cutler better then Orton, I would tend to say...hell yes.

Would of been nice if Royal showed up to the party this year.

Rick
03-12-2010, 01:04 PM
I wonder if it was Royal or Orton though...

Orton is not a bad QB, but I wonder did marshall have such great stats and noone else...because he is the only one Orton really looked at? Or was Royal and CO not getting open?

Biz1
03-12-2010, 01:06 PM
Why Y'all dp. Not get that BM is a head is beyond me.

How can anyone expect a guy that is getting in to trouble making 400K to 2 mil. Expect to be less of a head case making 9 to 12 mil a year.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Unfortunately, problem players have a tendency to get worse after receiving large contracts b/c their incentive to behave for that new contract is removed. Not saying it will happen with BM, but the odds are there.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 01:09 PM
These posts are on topic...... Marshall's value to a team. According to Lanecane Marshall makes Qb's ........Qb's (Orton and Cutler) do not make Marshall.....

I tend to disagree with that statement.......Someone has to get Marshall the ball to begin with (be that Orton or Cutler)

Marshall is a super talent but he cannot do it alone........The past three years he has caught over 100 balls and had 1,000 yards. In all three years the talent around him has aloud him to reach those stats. Saying that, Marshall is a great talent

Actually that is a fair argument, a good receiver can make a mediocre to good quarterback better, but a great quarterback and great receiver can take hold of the league by the balls, and history proves as much. If we had the defense of this past season with the offense of 08' we would have won the division outright in my opinion. Elway was great but Rod Smith complimented him and together they were a terrific tandum, look at Owens with McNabb, Aikman and Irving, Montana and Rice and so on and so forth. But fact remains that Orton is not great, but Marshall makes him better, Cutler is not great...but he has the ability to be great, without a good wideout he will always be good and may never reach his potential. The difference is that while Orton spreads the ball around he could not do it on the level that Cutler did, if you take Marshall off the roster, then we will see exactly what I mean.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 01:14 PM
I wonder if it was Royal or Orton though...

Orton is not a bad QB, but I wonder did marshall have such great stats and noone else...because he is the only one Orton really looked at? Or was Royal and CO not getting open?

No, it's because Orton and McDaniels' who called the plays knew that Marshall was the defacto key to the offense. Even with knowing that though, Josh McDaniels wants guys to buy everything he is selling without question and Brandon did not do that, not sure if he is now or not...but I am sure that is why there has been no trade as of yet, because he knows how hard it really is to get those type of receivers.

roomemp
03-12-2010, 01:14 PM
Actually that is a fair argument, a good receiver can make a mediocre to good quarterback better, but a great quarterback and great receiver can take hold of the league by the balls, and history proves as much. If we had the defense of this past season with the offense of 08' we would have won the division outright in my opinion. Elway was great but Rod Smith complimented him and together they were a terrific tandum, look at Owens with McNabb, Aikman and Irving, Montana and Rice and so on and so forth. But fact remains that Orton is not great, but Marshall makes him better, Cutler is not great...but he has the ability to be great, without a good wideout he will always be good and may never reach his potential. The difference is that while Orton spreads the ball around he could not do it on the level that Cutler did, if you take Marshall off the roster, then we will see exactly what I mean.

I can agree with that :salute:

silkamilkamonico
03-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Again another bad argument, one could say that is so...but in truth because Marshall's numbers were in fact less with Cutler, it also stems to show that he was better about spreading the ball to his other receivers; Eddie Royal, Brandon Stokely...hell even Daniel Graham had better numbers in 08' with Cutler at the helm compared to Orton this past season. Cutler threw for more yards with near the same exact roster, give Lloyd and Gaffney. The only difference is that Orton had better overall running backs, but in fact in 08' the team had better overall rushing yards at seasons end.

So is Cutler better then Orton, I would tend to say...hell yes.

Cutler is better than Orton like Jon Kitna was better than Jay Fiedler. Cutler is also a system QB, and flourished in the same system tha produced Pro Bowl QB juggernauts as Brian Griese and Jake Plunger.



A big plus is Miami has a better quarterback then Denver and Marshall would be a monster in that system.


LMAO uh no. This comment is just football ignorance at it's best.

Tned
03-12-2010, 01:24 PM
Yeah, that rookie Eddie Royal didnt do too bad against Oakland when Marshall was suspended. I like Brandon on the field and I'd love to keep him here, but let's not pretend no one else can step up when he's no in there.

Coach, I know you know football well enough to know that every receiver is better with Marshall on the field, because that means Marshall takes the number one CB, and often double teams, which leaves other receivers generally singled and with 2nd and nickel CBs.

If Marshall is out, then Gaffney or Royal is up against the number 1 CB. Besides the matchup aspect, you have the slotting aspect. With Marshall on the field, lets say you have:

Marshall
Gaffney
Royal

With Marshall out:

Gaffney
Royal
Stokely/Lloyd/Mckinley

Marshall > Gaffney
Gaffney = Royal (for arguments sake)
Royal > Stokely/Lloyd/Mckinley

It gets even worse if you go 4 WR vs. 4 WR.

When you take out a WR that is clearly superior to ever WR on your team, it makes everyone else in terms of matchup and their role (#1 vs #2 vs. slot).

That is what Thomas is saying, and something I know you fully understand, but I explained it for those that might not.

silkamilkamonico
03-12-2010, 01:26 PM
I like Marshall and don't want to lose him, but we had some of our best offensive games last year when Marshall was out.

I agree with Coach Chaz on that one. Someone else will step up. It's a good system despite anyones hatred for McDaniels, amd someone's going to put up numbers in it, regardless of who it is.

Lancane
03-12-2010, 01:27 PM
Cutler is better than Orton like Jon Kitna was better than Jay Fiedler. Cutler is also a system QB, and flourished in the same system tha produced Pro Bowl QB juggernauts as Brian Griese and Jake Plunger.




LMAO uh no. This comment is just football ignorance at it's best.

You mean the same system that won Elway two championships and he flourished in, the same for Montana and Young...great argument...lol.

Ignorance! That is rich coming from someone who believes the West Coast offense is a system that makes players better then they are, because that is actually the Pro-Spread which does that.

claymore
03-12-2010, 01:28 PM
We win less games when Marshall leaves. Bottom line.

Tned
03-12-2010, 01:30 PM
We win less games when Marshall leaves. Bottom line.

Yes, but as an ex-member of this forum used to tell us, that means we get a better draft choice the next year -- so it's all good.

CoachChaz
03-12-2010, 01:33 PM
Coach, I know you know football well enough to know that every receiver is better with Marshall on the field, because that means Marshall takes the number one CB, and often double teams, which leaves other receivers generally singled and with 2nd and nickel CBs.

If Marshall is out, then Gaffney or Royal is up against the number 1 CB. Besides the matchup aspect, you have the slotting aspect. With Marshall on the field, lets say you have:

Marshall
Gaffney
Royal

With Marshall out:

Gaffney
Royal
Stokely/Lloyd/Mckinley

Marshall > Gaffney
Gaffney = Royal (for arguments sake)
Royal > Stokely/Lloyd/Mckinley

It gets even worse if you go 4 WR vs. 4 WR.

When you take out a WR that is clearly superior to ever WR on your team, it makes everyone else in terms of matchup and their role (#1 vs #2 vs. slot).

That is what Thomas is saying, and something I know you fully understand, but I explained it for those that might not.

I wont say we're better or just as good without Marshall. I've even said it alot recently...I want him to stay. My only point is we have professional players on this team that have ability. If Marshall is gone...someone will step up and perform


We win less games when Marshall leaves. Bottom line.

What it an example of bias speculation, Alex?

Lancane
03-12-2010, 01:35 PM
Yes, but as an ex-member of this forum used to tell us, that means we get a better draft choice the next year -- so it's all good.

Well that may be...but it also hurts the franchise; while a team hits a slump it's proven that the attendence takes a hit, we know how that will effect aired games, many learned the hard way this past year. But it also hurts the sales of team products beyond just televised games...so we may get a better draft choice, but do we really want to be in the cellar of the AFC West because we rid ourselves of our better talent?

silkamilkamonico
03-12-2010, 01:36 PM
You mean the same system that won Elway two championships and he flourished in, the same for Montana and Young...great argument...lol. [/quote[



Ignorance! That is rich coming from someone who believes the West Coast offense is a system that makes players better then they are, because that is actually the Pro-Spread which does that.

It is a great argument. It's like trying to argue that Chad Henne is better than Kyle Orton, which is absurd. I don't like Orton either but there's no need to get stupid about it.

I also like the continuing argument of Cutler and Orton, who are both average NFL QB's at best. Niether is even a top 10 QB in the NFL. Orton never heen, and Cutler's been passed by younger and more consistent players.

Let's not forget that Elway, Griese, and Plunger all have winning recrods with Denver. ANd Cutler hasn't had a winning recrod since high school. It was probably smart of you to completely overlook that.

Lonestar
03-12-2010, 01:37 PM
Why Y'all do Not get that BM is a head is beyond me.

How can anyone expect a guy that is getting in to trouble making 400K to 2 mil. Expect to be less of a head case making 9 to 12 mil a year.


As for the D holding the other team scoreless in the second half. Well KO had to bring the team back in each of those games from behind so they must have scored in the fist half.

It is still debateable if jay is the next Jeff George or John Elway. So until we have that figured out let's not say that he is a better QB than KO is.

As for the bears ha ving a great D Ortons last year. Somone really needs to check those stats IIRC they were in the mid 20's a mere shadow of what they used to be.

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

SmilinAssasSin27
03-12-2010, 01:39 PM
Like who, Royal? Who was nowhere to be seen last year or Gaffney the one game wonder? Sorry Chaz, but a Marshall-esque receiver is not easily replaced...and the fandom will realize that if, or when he is gone.

44 Super Bowl champs have been crowned. None of them has had Brandon Marshall on their roster.

claymore
03-12-2010, 01:42 PM
What it an example of bias speculation, Alex?

99% of the posts on this forum are some sort of speculation.

silkamilkamonico
03-12-2010, 01:46 PM
44 Super Bowl champs have been crowned. None of them has had Brandon Marshall on their roster.

Or an elite WR for that matter, with the exception of maybe a handful. It's arguably the least important position in terms of gaining SuperBowl "talent", with the benefit of hindsight.

Biz1
03-12-2010, 01:46 PM
Yes, but as an ex-member of this forum used to tell us, that means we get a better draft choice the next year -- so it's all good.

Almost 50% of first round draft picks turn out to be busts, why take the risk?.

Tned
03-12-2010, 01:58 PM
I wont say we're better or just as good without Marshall. I've even said it alot recently...I want him to stay. My only point is we have professional players on this team that have ability. If Marshall is gone...someone will step up and perform


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that losing/moving Marshall will prevent us from ever winning again, or nobody will ever equal his production. Instead, simply that with the people on our roster right now, there is no way (virtually no way) that the receiving corp-ses will be as good without him as with him.

dogfish
03-12-2010, 02:03 PM
44 Super Bowl champs have been crowned. None of them has had Brandon Marshall on their roster.

or barry sanders, for that matter-- still wouldn't mind having him on my team, though. . . .

weazel
03-12-2010, 02:20 PM
Elvis Dumervil wants Broncos to get Peyton Manning!

T.K.O.
03-12-2010, 02:59 PM
Elvis Dumervil wants Broncos to get Peyton Manning!

then we could'nt afford "elvis dumervil":mad: