PDA

View Full Version : Default Don't be surprised if the Denver Broncos end up with the 6th pick (and 11th)



Mr D
03-25-2010, 10:04 AM
I believe Seahawks really want Marshall and they're just trying to bring down the price for Marshall by playing soft and prolonging the situation.

There is no reason to go hard after Marshall ASAP, especially when there wasn't/isn't any other team as a threat to get Marshall... so it'd be the strategic thing to do to drag it until the draft to pin the Broncos into a decision.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Seahawks give up the 6th pick come draft day, and you best bet Broncos are definitely preparing for that situation.

Pete Carroll is a first year coach who hasn't accustomed to losing for the past decade, I can guarantee you that is what he's preaching right now in Seattle. He's going to do what he can do to have maximum success in 2010 as his first year, and there's nothing better than to get a proven elite WR in his offensive system. Jeremy Bates is probably in his ear about BM too.

In theory - Seahawks are organizing a full blown contract with Marshall that he will obviously have to agree on... this in itself will be a huge investment in money and time. When/if they do, Seahawks will have shown their hand at this point where they've gone out of their way to prepare and write up a huge contract for Marshall.

RFA ends a week before the draft, but I don't think it will make a difference if Seahawks really want him.

Come draft day or before the draft - if the Broncos make the Seahawks feel as if they have to give up the 6th, Seahawks will feel the pressure because they obviously want Marshall (at this point since they have a contract laid out).

And I hope Seahawks make a move out of desperation and give up the 6th. It doesn't look like they're going to draft a QB at this point. They'd be getting a long term elite WR for the 6th pick which would obviously be worth it if you're just looking at that alone.

If they're not getting a QB, you can argue they can pretty much get a similar position at 14... again the draft is always a risk. If they're planning to get a olineman, there will be some at 14 and later. If they want a safety, they'll miss on Berry but they might have Earl Thomas (who is projected to be better than Berry by some) and Taylor Mays (USC). If they're looking for McCoy, they could get Dan Williams at 14 (6th would probably be too low for McCoy and 14th might be too low for Dan so either way it's a risk). Unless their gunning for Haden, most the other positions will probably have good players at 14th.

The list goes on but the fact is if they're not getting a QB, 6th might be worth it for Marshall since they have a 14th. Seahawks will be trying to win THIS season with the Cards losing key players, making the Niners possible division favorites but not by far.

It would be pretty intense for a trade to happen on draft day - because if a trade were to happen Seahawks would have had to write him a contract already at THIS point (unless Seahawks run their s.hit fu.c.ked up which wouldn't be a surprise either), so they'd still be under the heat regardless.

Don't be surprised if we end up with the 6th. If Denver Broncos FO really don't want Marshall, they should be able to push the Seahawks up against the wall right when the Seahawks and Marshall agree on a contract.

This is pretty much the meter -

1. If we get a 6th, Seattle want him bad and paid full price.

2. If we get a 14th, Halfway point - Seattle wants him, Broncos want to get rid of him.

3. Anything less, Broncos want to get rid of him, PERIOD.

(if we get a first round - it just shows another half way point...if it's a low first we probably wanted to get rid of him regardless)

Tned
03-25-2010, 10:08 AM
I'm confused about the (and 11th) part.

claymore
03-25-2010, 10:08 AM
Im more concerned with the Seahawks schooling this front office again. I wouldnt be shocked to get their late 2nd round pick.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 10:08 AM
I wouldn't be surprised however, I think there is greater chance it will be the 14th overall pick not the 6th.

Traveler
03-25-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm still predicting BM will remain a Bronco (sigh) and no trade happens with SEA or any other team.

UnderArmour
03-25-2010, 10:18 AM
Im more concerned with the Seahawks schooling this front office again. I wouldnt be shocked to get their late 2nd round pick.

If that's the case, we should just keep Marshall. Call their bluff. I don't think McDaniels has any intention of giving Marshall away for less than a first round pick, so they can try to trap us but I'd rather keep Marshall. I think McDaniels is taking the same mindset. Even if Marshall has been a target of McDaniels's ire, he's still the best player we have on the offensive side of the ball.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm confused about the (and 11th) part.

All that means is we'll also have our 11th pick in the 1st round :cool:

NameUsedBefore
03-25-2010, 10:27 AM
I too think come draft day we may end up with the 6th pick depending on who is still available at that time.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm still predicting BM will remain a Bronco (sigh) and no trade happens with SEA or any other team.

Do you the names of the girl on the left in your sig? I remember that was at a big UFC event.

Traveler
03-25-2010, 10:33 AM
Do you the names of the girl on the left in your sig? I remember that was at a big UFC event.

Can't help you out. Sorry!

Mr D
03-25-2010, 10:33 AM
I too think come draft day we may end up with the 6th pick depending on who is still available at that time.

That would be intense last minute BS happening.

First, Seahawks would have to have missed the player they wanted.

Second, they'd have to have Marshall agree to the contract

Third, Broncos would have to agree and also want a player right there and then, or this could extend to a trade with another team, etc... all RIGHT AFTER the 5th pick. :lol:

I'm not sure if this would be a good thing to do - they'd basically be telling Marshall we're looking for this guy in the draft, we want him more than you.

Tned
03-25-2010, 10:34 AM
I'm still predicting BM will remain a Bronco (sigh) and no trade happens with SEA or any other team.

We can only hope!!! ;)

Clay, as to the FO being schooled. While I think trading Cutler was a mistake, you can't fault McD for what they got for him. They got great value for him, which obviously was aided by there being a lot teams interested in Cutler.

Now, the flip side is that trade to Seattle for Smith, which to many of us didn't appear smart at the time, and almost a year later, is looking worse than we thought. However, he could have traded that pick and grabbed a player in the first round and had it be an equally big bust, because that's the nature of drafting players -- very few are sure things, no matter where they are picked.

Traveler
03-25-2010, 10:38 AM
We can only hope!!! ;)

Clay, as to the FO being schooled. While I think trading Cutler was a mistake, you can't fault McD for what they got for him. They got great value for him, which obviously was aided by there being a lot teams interested in Cutler.

Now, the flip side is that trade to Seattle for Smith, which to many of us didn't appear smart at the time, and almost a year later, is looking worse than we thought. However, he could have traded that pick and grabbed a player in the first round and had it be an equally big bust, because that's the nature of drafting players -- very few are sure things, no matter where they are picked.

Just imagine the possibilities if we had the 6th, 11th, and 14th picks.





















Okay, I'm awake now.

SOCALORADO.
03-25-2010, 10:38 AM
That would be intense last minute BS happening.

First, Seahawks would have to have missed the player they wanted.

Second, they'd have to have Marshall agree to the contract

Third, Broncos would have to agree and also want a player right there and then, or this could extend to a trade with another team, etc... all RIGHT AFTER the 5th pick. :lol:

I'm not sure if this would be a good thing to do - they'd basically be telling Marshall we're looking for this guy in the draft, we want him more than you.

How come Moreno is wearing #24 in your video game, picture thingy?

Ravage!!!
03-25-2010, 10:44 AM
I just don't see the Seahawks flipping on the 6ht pick. Wouldn't make sense. If the player they want is n't there, then they trade down. Someone will want that 6th pick to beat someone else to a player. I know trading down isn't always the easiest of moves. YOu have to have a team willing to trade first.

I just don't think thats reasonable, unless Seattle doesn't want to pay for the 6th pick. But the Seattle owner has a LOT more money than Bowlen does. If they don't want to pay fo rhte 6th pick, they can (most probably)move down. All the while, STILL be able to grab Marshall for another pick.

claymore
03-25-2010, 10:46 AM
We can only hope!!! ;)

Clay, as to the FO being schooled. While I think trading Cutler was a mistake, you can't fault McD for what they got for him. They got great value for him, which obviously was aided by there being a lot teams interested in Cutler.

Now, the flip side is that trade to Seattle for Smith, which to many of us didn't appear smart at the time, and almost a year later, is looking worse than we thought. However, he could have traded that pick and grabbed a player in the first round and had it be an equally big bust, because that's the nature of drafting players -- very few are sure things, no matter where they are picked.

I was going off of the Smith trade. We not only gave them a #1 for a #2, but we couldnt even dictate which one we gave them. Our #1 ended up being the less valuable of the 2, but that was just bad luck on their part.

Pretty hard to screw up the Cutler trade. I dont think 2 #1 picks are worth it. Especially when we act redneck rich with draft picks.

McD/xanders dumb ass decision to trade for the Smith pick is completley seperate of the ass raping we took in the trade. Behind the Cutler trade, it was the dumbest thing Ive ever seen in an NFL franchise do.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 10:46 AM
How come Moreno is wearing #24 in your video game, picture thingy?

There's something missing from your post?

Mr D
03-25-2010, 10:51 AM
How come Moreno is wearing #24 in your video game, picture thingy?

That is from draft day last year, he was 24 in college.

SOCALORADO.
03-25-2010, 10:51 AM
There's something missing from your post?


Well, if it was QWinn(who will start week 1, by the way) in the picture (or even the other picture) i would have thrown it in there, but seeing that there are already like 3 threads with him as a topic, i thought i would give it a rest on this one sorta...........:D

SOCALORADO.
03-25-2010, 10:54 AM
That is from draft day last year, he was 24 in college.

Lazy @$$ atari losers cant even get a number right.
Thats why video games are so unpopular.......

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 10:59 AM
I just don't see the Seahawks flipping on the 6ht pick. Wouldn't make sense. If the player they want is n't there, then they trade down. Someone will want that 6th pick to beat someone else to a player. I know trading down isn't always the easiest of moves. YOu have to have a team willing to trade first.

I just don't think thats reasonable, unless Seattle doesn't want to pay for the 6th pick. But the Seattle owner has a LOT more money than Bowlen does. If they don't want to pay fo rhte 6th pick, they can (most probably)move down. All the while, STILL be able to grab Marshall for another pick.

I wont be surprised if they trade the 6th pick for Marshall, but I don't expect it to happen. I think it's more likely that Denver would gets the 14th pick.

Tned
03-25-2010, 11:00 AM
Just imagine the possibilities if we had the 6th, 11th, and 14th picks.





















Okay, I'm awake now.

I have thought of it, even just the 11th and 14th would have been so damn nice.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 11:04 AM
I have thought of it, even just the 11th and 14th would have been so damn nice.

If this trade is going to happens at all it's more like that we get the 14th pick. But I realize that's assuming (as dangerous as that is) that McDaniels sticks to his guns that he has to have a 1st rounder for Marshall and that Seattle wants Marshall that badly.

Buff
03-25-2010, 11:10 AM
Seattle isn't dumb. They aren't going to give up the #6 pick when no other teams have shown an interest in giving up even a late 1st rounder.

I would be absolutely shocked if we ended up with the 6th pick.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 11:13 AM
Seattle isn't dumb. They aren't going to give up the #6 pick when no other teams have shown an interest in giving up even a late 1st rounder.

I would be absolutely shocked if we ended up with the 6th pick.

Then you don't believe Seattle wants Marshall bad - which could also be correct. However, if you believe Seattle really wants Marshall - they can be played into giving a 6th.

Ravage!!!
03-25-2010, 11:20 AM
Then you don't believe Seattle wants Marshall bad - which could also be correct. However, if you believe Seattle really wants Marshall - they can be played into giving a 6th.

So.. you think that Denver wants to keep him SOOOO much, that they are willing to take the chance and "hold out" for the 6th pick instead of taking an offered 14th (if its offered), because they think Seattle wants him bad enough?

Hmmm.... I would contend that McD wants Marshall gone more than that. Much more than Seattle can be "played" when there isn't anyone else in the game right now.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 11:22 AM
So.. you think that Denver wants to keep him SOOOO much, that they are willing to take the chance and "hold out" for the 6th pick instead of taking an offered 14th (if its offered), because they think Seattle wants him bad enough?

Hmmm.... I would contend that McD wants Marshall gone more than that. Much more than Seattle can be "played" when there isn't anyone else in the game right now.

lol I would assume they can just wait out for the 14th pick until the last minute as the Seahawks would too...

Whoever makes the first twitch...

Lancane
03-25-2010, 11:30 AM
We can assume by the reports coming out of Seattle that they are still interested. And if Seattle decides by some miracle that Marshall is worth that 6th overall pick then all they need to do is sign a contract, therefore it's not a trade and we either match it or will not; in that situation the chances are slim that we would. It's more likely to be that they agree to terms as far as a contract and they begin speaking to Denver adamantly about a lower pick, though I don't see them waivering and taking anything less then a first or the value equal to in picks. We'll see and one should never discount the possibilites, even if to some it is unrealistic.

jlarsiii
03-25-2010, 11:34 AM
I agree with other posters in stating that if we have to give up Brandon it would be nice to get the 6th pick, but everything points to this not happening.

If we really wanted to keep him he would have been tendered at a 1st and 3rd round pick compensation. We only tendered him a 1st as everyone knows which really was a big sign to all other teams saying come and get him.

Even though the team has stated that they want nothing less than a 1st round pick they really don't have a leg to stand on because they have made their intentions clear by not tendering Brandon at the highest level. All other teams know that it appears our FO is more interested in letting him go then keep him.

With that knowledge in mind there is no way Seattle is going to give up their 6th pick because, let's face it, they know we really don't want to keep him. Ergo he can be had for less.

It sucks but that is the way it is. I say keep him because he is better than the crap shoot we call the NFL draft. Won't happen though. . .

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 11:43 AM
We can assume by the reports coming out of Seattle that they are still interested. And if Seattle decides by some miracle that Marshall is worth that 6th overall pick then all they need to do is sign a contract, therefore it's not a trade and we either match it or will not; in that situation the chances are slim that we would. It's more likely to be that they agree to terms as far as a contract and they begin speaking to Denver adamantly about a lower pick, though I don't see them waivering and taking anything less then a first or the value equal to in picks. We'll see and one should never discount the possibilites, even if to some it is unrealistic.

Agreed. It's not an impossibility that we could get the 6th overall pick it's just likely to happen. I think if Marshall is traded to Seattle we'll end up with 14th overall pick or as you mentioned (which I hadn't thought of) enough picks equalling a first rounder.

DenBronx
03-25-2010, 11:51 AM
I just don't see the Seahawks flipping on the 6ht pick. Wouldn't make sense. If the player they want is n't there, then they trade down. Someone will want that 6th pick to beat someone else to a player. I know trading down isn't always the easiest of moves. YOu have to have a team willing to trade first.

I just don't think thats reasonable, unless Seattle doesn't want to pay for the 6th pick. But the Seattle owner has a LOT more money than Bowlen does. If they don't want to pay fo rhte 6th pick, they can (most probably)move down. All the while, STILL be able to grab Marshall for another pick.

really? how so? i know bowlen was tight the last couple of years during the shanny era. letting front office people go and all but i think his pocket is still one of the deepest in the league. just makes sense to not overspend if you don't have to.

remember bowlen fired shanny knowing he would still have to dish out millions regardless. even snyder and jones are not on their usual spending sprees. makes sense in tough economic times.

regarding the seahawks, i think it will come down to WHO IS AVAILABLE @ PICK 6. if their guy isnt their then they might want to just go forth with the trade. i also think they will have a new contract ready to go on draft day for marshall.

in fact if the first round doesnt pan out for other teams then i think its very possible we will have 2-3 interested parties involved. josh better be wide awake for this one.

DenBronx
03-25-2010, 11:55 AM
no way we settle for the 60th pick overall for marshall.


that would go down as the biggest block headed move in modern times.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:09 PM
no way we settle for the 60th pick overall for marshall.


that would go down as the biggest block headed move in modern times.

Well, not to sound pessimistic...but we are talking about the same head coach and front office that alienated then traded a franchise quarterback. So anything is possible...

arapaho2
03-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Well, not to sound pessimistic...but we are talking about the same head coach and front office that alienated then traded a franchise quarterback. So anything is possible...

also the same office that traded a 14th overall pick for a small cb projected to go in the 3rd ...and then who couldnt beat out a undrafted rookie and a over the hill vet for time

Buff
03-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Then you don't believe Seattle wants Marshall bad - which could also be correct. However, if you believe Seattle really wants Marshall - they can be played into giving a 6th.

I disagree. If you believe that Seattle could be talked into giving us the #6, then you'd have to believe Denver would turn down the #14 pick in exchange for Marshall. I have to believe that McD and Xanders would jump at the opportunity to unload Marshall for the 14th pick.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:23 PM
also the same office that traded a 14th overall pick for a small cb projected to go in the 3rd ...and then who couldnt beat out a undrafted rookie and a over the hill vet for time

Yes, there is that point as well. But we as fans really do not know what they will or will not do, we have the power to bitch and boo at them, but have little say so beyond that. Shanahan did some questionable moves himself, but at least with him I had a feeling he was trying to improve, even when he failed horridly. With McDaniels, it's more like I get the feeling he would go down in flames before he began to believe he was wrong...not a great feeling for a fan. We can only hope that it's just a feeling and far from the truth.

But I admit that I look forward to seeing his reaction when Orton has a bad showing and the fans in the stands are screaming for Quinn. It may just end up being the highlight of the season, and maybe he will realize that the fans are just as much a part of the game then he is.

SOCALORADO.
03-25-2010, 12:24 PM
Well, not to sound pessimistic...but we are talking about the same head coach and front office that alienated then traded a franchise quarterback with a Jeff George complex. So anything is possible...
:lol:

Buff
03-25-2010, 12:29 PM
I disagree. If you believe that Seattle could be talked into giving us the #6, then you'd have to believe Denver would turn down the #14 pick in exchange for Marshall. I have to believe that McD and Xanders would jump at the opportunity to unload Marshall for the 14th pick.

To expand on this thought: Let's say hypothetically we drove a hard bargain and told Seattle we'd only accept the #6 pick and not the #14 pick. All Seattle would have to do is talk any one of the 18 teams that picks below #14 into signing Marshall to an offer sheet, then that team would trade Marshall to Seattle and swap first round draft slots with Seattle.

Any team would jump at the chance because they'd get to move up to the #14 slot... And Seattle wouldn't care who the trade was with, because they're only concerned with getting Marshall for their 2nd first round pick.

So it's virtually impossible that we'd end up with the #6 pick, unless Seattle is the dumbest franchise in the history of sports.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:35 PM
To expand on this thought: Let's say hypothetically we drove a hard bargain and told Seattle we'd only accept the #6 pick and not the #14 pick. All Seattle would have to do is talk any one of the 18 teams that picks below #14 into signing Marshall to an offer sheet, then that team would trade Marshall to Seattle and swap first round draft slots with Seattle.

Any team would jump at the chance because they'd get to move up to the #14 slot... And Seattle wouldn't care who the trade was with, because they're only concerned with getting Marshall for their 2nd first round pick.

So it's virtually impossible that we'd end up with the #6 pick, unless Seattle is the dumbest franchise in the history of sports.

Let's expand further because in that situation because it would have to be done in a timely fashion. It can not be say done a day or two before the draft, Denver could just match the offer...if the other team added a 'poison pill' or tried not to give Denver time to match before the draft, then the league could get involved and both teams involved could be forced to forfeit certain picks if the league decided that it was just. So Denver could simply match the offer and then either keep Marshall or trade him, it would again be in their court.

CoachChaz
03-25-2010, 12:45 PM
Well, not to sound pessimistic...but we are talking about the same head coach and front office that alienated then traded a franchise quarterback. So anything is possible...

When did Cutler become a franchise QB? Did I miss something?


also the same office that traded a 14th overall pick for a small cb projected to go in the 3rd ...and then who couldnt beat out a undrafted rookie and a over the hill vet for time

Smith was actually projected to go in the first round and fell to the 2nd because of hi height...which doesnt seem to affect alot of other CB's.



I'm not going to blindly and wildly defend McD's decisions for the same reason I'm not going to bash them. If Cutler breaks all the records and wins 3 Super Bowls and Smith is out of the league in 3 years, then the moves are stupid.

But if Smith turns into a very good CB and Cutler stay on his current path...then maybe they werent so dumb. But NONE of us...no matter how god we think we are...can make that decision after one season. Unless of course we just want reasons to hate our coach.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:54 PM
To expand on this thought: Let's say hypothetically we drove a hard bargain and told Seattle we'd only accept the #6 pick and not the #14 pick. All Seattle would have to do is talk any one of the 18 teams that picks below #14 into signing Marshall to an offer sheet, then that team would trade Marshall to Seattle and swap first round draft slots with Seattle.

Any team would jump at the chance because they'd get to move up to the #14 slot... And Seattle wouldn't care who the trade was with, because they're only concerned with getting Marshall for their 2nd first round pick.

So it's virtually impossible that we'd end up with the #6 pick, unless Seattle is the dumbest franchise in the history of sports.

Actually, this has been brought up before and said it couldnt be done. I forget why but it has something to do with the rules.

Buff
03-25-2010, 12:59 PM
Let's expand further because in that situation because it would have to be done in a timely fashion. It can not be say done a day or two before the draft, Denver could just match the offer...if the other team added a 'poison pill' or tried not to give Denver time to match before the draft, then the league could get involved and both teams involved could be forced to forfeit certain picks if the league decided that it was just. So Denver could simply match the offer and then either keep Marshall or trade him, it would again be in their court.

Well, all RFA offer sheets have to be signed by April 15 (one week prior to the draft) anyway. So there isn't the opportunity for last minute dealings - Denver will have 1 week to match any offers regardless.

As for the poison pill... There is no policy preventing poison pills - teams and agents mostly avoid them out of good faith... The league would not intervene based on the presence of a poison pill in a contract.

So, getting back to the original point, Seattle would work out a sign and trade before they ever considered giving up the #6 pick. The only way I'd see them giving it up is if they viewed it as too big of a financial committment to give Marshall a new deal and pay the #6 guaranteed money.

Buff
03-25-2010, 01:09 PM
Actually, this has been brought up before and said it couldnt be done. I forget why but it has something to do with the rules.

Hmm, I'd be interested in finding out more. It seems like it'd be perfectly legal to me, but I guess it's possible that they wrote in some contingency to prevent teams from circumventing the RFA/draft pick exchange.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 01:15 PM
I disagree. If you believe that Seattle could be talked into giving us the #6, then you'd have to believe Denver would turn down the #14 pick in exchange for Marshall. I have to believe that McD and Xanders would jump at the opportunity to unload Marshall for the 14th pick.

Maybe I've misunderstood but I thought McDaniels said he would not taking anything less than a first round pick or something very similar to that. If that's the case, then that would mean to me that if they offered up the 14th overall pick instead of the 6th McDaniels wouldn't abject.

Buff
03-25-2010, 01:17 PM
Maybe I've misunderstood but I thought McDaniels said he would not taking anything less than a first round pick or something very similar to that. If that's the case, then that would mean to me that if they offered up the 14th overall pick instead of the 6th McDaniels wouldn't abject.

Exactly. Especially considering there aren't other 1st round offers pouring in.

claymore
03-25-2010, 01:20 PM
Actually, this has been brought up before and said it couldnt be done. I forget why but it has something to do with the rules.


Hmm, I'd be interested in finding out more. It seems like it'd be perfectly legal to me, but I guess it's possible that they wrote in some contingency to prevent teams from circumventing the RFA/draft pick exchange.

Florio covered this on the local radio show. And it is legal, I think it has to be the teams originating pick that gets traded back though. ???

I cant find anything that touches this rule wise.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 01:20 PM
Exactly. Especially considering there aren't other 1st round offers pouring in.

I would not be surprised in the least if McDaniels and the rest of the front office would actually prefer to have the 14th overall pick rather than the 6th.

Buff
03-25-2010, 01:27 PM
Actually, this has been brought up before and said it couldnt be done. I forget why but it has something to do with the rules.


Florio covered this on the local radio show. And it is legal, I think it has to be the teams originating pick that gets traded back though. ???

I cant find anything that touches this rule wise.

I did a little digging and according to Florio's interpretation, it's legal:


So what should the Seahawks do? As we suggested in a recent item at SportingNews.com, they should offer the 14th overall pick 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 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.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/on-marshall-seahawks-should-consider-an-offer-sheet-end-run/

claymore
03-25-2010, 01:31 PM
I did a little digging and according to Florio's interpretation, it's legal:

If I were SanDiego Id be calling seattle to do that. Id throw in a 3rd rounder to.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 01:39 PM
we're in the process of asking around to see if any portion of the CBA prevents such a transaction

You people are actually listening to Florio, he's too stupid to be a good attorney no less a sports writer. He forgot to mention that the league could take it as something altogether different and the teams involved could be penalized if the league and no less the commissioner felt it was wrongful on the part of those involved. He does not even know the CBA rules in the matter, I wonder what he would do if the trade went forward and then the NFL and the Broncos both sued him and PFT's parent company NBC for tampering?

Buff
03-25-2010, 01:55 PM
You people are actually listening to Florio, he's too stupid to be a good attorney no less a sports writer. He forgot to mention that the league could take it as something altogether different and the teams involved could be penalized if the league and no less the commissioner felt it was wrongful on the part of those involved. He does not even know the CBA rules in the matter, I wonder what he would do if the trade went forward and then the NFL and the Broncos both sued him and PFT's parent company NBC for tampering?

I'm open to the possibility that Florio is wrong, but if you're going to call him stupid, you should at least try to make sense. NBC tampering? Are they thinking about trading for Marshall too?

claymore
03-25-2010, 02:22 PM
You people are actually listening to Florio, he's too stupid to be a good attorney no less a sports writer. He forgot to mention that the league could take it as something altogether different and the teams involved could be penalized if the league and no less the commissioner felt it was wrongful on the part of those involved. He does not even know the CBA rules in the matter, I wonder what he would do if the trade went forward and then the NFL and the Broncos both sued him and PFT's parent company NBC for tampering?


I'm open to the possibility that Florio is wrong, but if you're going to call him stupid, you should at least try to make sense. NBC tampering? Are they thinking about trading for Marshall too?
IMO Florio is a pretty smart articulate guy. I dont always agree with him, but am pretty sure he is better at understanding the legalize of the CBA than I am.

I am also positive he has more contact with agents and GM's than I or any of us will ever have. If the article wasnt corrected than its probably an accurate assumption that he hit the nail on the head.

NFL players, agents and GM's all read his site and communicate with him. One of them would have corrected him if he was wrong.

And tampering isnt possible with a RFA. Only a holdout.

SOCALORADO.
03-25-2010, 02:59 PM
I would not be surprised in the least if McDaniels and the rest of the front office would actually prefer to have the 14th overall pick rather than the 6th.

I agree. I dont think MCD even wants the #6 pick.
at #11 they could grab Dez to fill Marshalls spot, and at #14 they could take Graham,Odrick or DWilliams for the defense. Then spend the rest of the draft addressing the O-Line.

arapaho2
03-25-2010, 03:53 PM
To expand on this thought: Let's say hypothetically we drove a hard bargain and told Seattle we'd only accept the #6 pick and not the #14 pick. All Seattle would have to do is talk any one of the 18 teams that picks below #14 into signing Marshall to an offer sheet, then that team would trade Marshall to Seattle and swap first round draft slots with Seattle.

Any team would jump at the chance because they'd get to move up to the #14 slot... And Seattle wouldn't care who the trade was with, because they're only concerned with getting Marshall for their 2nd first round pick.

So it's virtually impossible that we'd end up with the #6 pick, unless Seattle is the dumbest franchise in the history of sports.

just cant happen...it cant and wont..period

once again they cannot just sign marshall and trade him....the broncos have 7 days to mull it over before either matching or letting him go...in that time they can file cohersian charges if it seems to teams are conspireing to cheat them out of thier rfa

Denver Native (Carol)
03-25-2010, 03:58 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14752735?source=rss

According to NFL executives familiar with the restricted free- agent process, protocol is for the Seahawks to first negotiate the framework of a new contract with Marshall, who has managed to set aside the occasional turbulence in his personal life to produce three consecutive 100-catch seasons. Only then would Seattle start compensation talks with the Broncos.

The Broncos began the restricted free-agent process on March 3 by slapping Marshall with a first-round tender that carries a $2.512 million salary for 2010. Marshall, though, is widely considered one of the league's top five receivers and is seeking a contract worth more than $10 million a year.

Should Seattle be willing to sign Marshall away, it would have to compensate the Broncos with a first-round draft pick. Seattle has two first-round picks, Nos. 6 and No. 14.

The Seahawks, though, don't appear in a rush to part with either first-round pick. There are ways of working outside the restricted free-agent process and executing a trade involving other compensation. But if Seattle refuses to budge off its insistence of keeping both first-round picks, it may have a difficult time satisfying the Broncos.

Seattle's next-highest draft choice is late in the second round, No. 60 overall. Even if Seattle throws in two fourth-round draft choices, the Broncos would want any compensation package for a player of Marshall's caliber to begin with something higher than No. 60.

If Marshall goes past the April 15 offer-sheet deadline without a deal from Seattle, other teams figure to become involved in the week leading up to the draft on April 22.

Buff
03-25-2010, 04:11 PM
just cant happen...it cant and wont..period

once again they cannot just sign marshall and trade him....the broncos have 7 days to mull it over before either matching or letting him go...in that time they can file cohersian charges if it seems to teams are conspireing to cheat them out of thier rfa

I don't know if you are correct to say that it "can't" happen. You might be, but no one really seems to understand all the ramifications of this collusion clause.

TXBRONC
03-25-2010, 04:39 PM
I agree. I dont think MCD even wants the #6 pick.
at #11 they could grab Dez to fill Marshalls spot, and at #14 they could take Graham,Odrick or DWilliams for the defense. Then spend the rest of the draft addressing the O-Line.

I like the idea of having the 14th pick because I think it actually gives the Broncos more flexibility that 6th overall pick would.

Kaylore
03-25-2010, 04:50 PM
If Seattle trades, they'll only do it if the guy they're targeting doesn't fall to them, which likely is one of the QB's.

topscribe
03-25-2010, 05:12 PM
If I'm the Broncos, it's the #6 or nothing.

And if it's nothing, I'm not too sure I didn't end up the better for it . . .

-----

arapaho2
03-25-2010, 05:16 PM
If I'm the Broncos, it's the #6 or nothing.

And if it's nothing, I'm not too sure I didn't end up the better for it . . .

-----


yep a proven product vrs a unproven rookie...i'll keep marshall

arapaho2
03-25-2010, 05:18 PM
i don't know if you are correct to say that it "can't" happen. You might be, but no one really seems to understand all the ramifications of this collusion clause.

they cannot sign marshall and trade him...without first letting the broncos match...period

Buff
03-25-2010, 05:30 PM
they cannot sign marshall and trade him...without first letting the broncos match...period

Everyone knows this. That is not the issue at hand.

arapaho2
03-25-2010, 05:41 PM
Everyone knows this. That is not the issue at hand.
it is when you state seattle can simply convince another team to sign marshall then trade him to seattle

Denver Native (Carol)
03-25-2010, 05:44 PM
If I'm the Broncos, it's the #6 or nothing.

And if it's nothing, I'm not too sure I didn't end up the better for it . . .

-----

Mike Fiori was on the phone with Mike and Sandy this afternoon, and he said if Seattle did offer an offer for Brandon to the Broncos, they would be much farther along getting Brandon, than drafting an unproven at a #6 pick.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-25-2010, 05:46 PM
it is when you state seattle can simply convince another team to sign marshall then trade him to seattle

The other team would be the one to deal with the Broncos - not Seattle.

Buff
03-25-2010, 05:47 PM
it is when you state seattle can simply convince another team to sign marshall then trade him to seattle

The point is that at some point another team would sign Marshall to an offer sheet, and then after the 7 day period went by and Denver did not match, he would be traded. Thus, a sign and trade.

The issue at hand is whether or not there are collusion rules in place within the CBA to prevent such a deal.

topscribe
03-25-2010, 06:11 PM
Mike Fiori was on the phone with Mike and Sandy this afternoon, and he said if Seattle did offer an offer for Brandon to the Broncos, they would be much farther along getting Brandon, than drafting an unproven at a #6 pick.

Exactly . . . and so the implication is the Broncos would be farther along to keep
Brandon rather than drafting an unproven pick . . .

-----

BigBroncLove
03-25-2010, 06:12 PM
The point is that at some point another team would sign Marshall to an offer sheet, and then after the 7 day period went by and Denver did not match, he would be traded. Thus, a sign and trade.

The issue at hand is whether or not there are collusion rules in place within the CBA to prevent such a deal.

Personally I wouldn't worry about any form of poison pill contract emerging from Seattle in joint with another team, such as San Diego. The NFL and obviously the owners in turn, have made a fairly obvious stance over poison pill's in contracts since they lost their attempt through the courts to outlaw the use of poison pills in RFA contract offers in 2006.

The Vikings, the year they signed Hutchinson with the poison pill contract, were met with a lot of animosity at the NFL owners meetings that following March. The next year the Seahawks used a similar poison pill to rip Burleson away from the Vikings. It wasn't until the Seahawks had their revenge that the NFL tried to settle with the NFLPA and it couldn't. Then went to the courts and lost. Since that loss not one single poison pill has been used in the league (07, 08, and 09). Also remember the Vikings used the poison pill only a year after new owner Wilf bought the team. A new man to the league who obviously didn't know the unspoken rules of it...

The NFLPA is ready to cry foul, since they feel its quite obvious the Owners have been working in collusion to ensure that what the NFL and owners feel as unfair tactics have been avoided league wide. I think it's obvious that the owners are in collusion though its impossible to prove.

I wouldn't expect a single team to make a poison pill offer, regardless of their regular season animosity for one another. The owners are a fraternity and business men first. They know the results of using the poison pill. Once used it will be retaliated with until it could spread across the league, with devastating consequences to one of the highly held standards that is RFA.

IMO it won't happen.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 06:55 PM
I personally don't think it's as simple as calling another random team and they'll do it - there will be complications involved.

This will then turn into, if a team is say at the 25th pick is called up by Seattle to bring down the deal, and then a team with the 20th pick calls Seattle and tells them they'll sign Marshall AND give them a 6th round pick to move up to 14th... and it goes on.

Florio wasn't aware of any problems with the NFLPA if something like this were to happen, but I can tell you that it would be some grimy shit...

Again I don't think they take this route because they'd obviously have a contract written up for Marshall and the Broncos would know the exact details of the contract (they'd have to sign Marshall then trade for 14th) - but if Seattle threatened to do all this, the offer of 14th is still on the table for the Broncos... however if Broncos REALLY want to stand tall they'd just match the offer if Seattle tries and call say the Chargers to offer Marshall to a sheet.

At this point Seattle wouldn't get Marshall period, and they just wasted all that time for nothing.

My whole basis is the idea of Seattle really wanting Marshall - that's where all this lies on. If they really do - this route would indicate that they're pretty desperate in which they'd probably just end up giving a 6th. Calling another team to sign Marshall will still leave the Broncos open with 3 options - a.) matching the offer and keeping Marshall b.) matching the offer and trading him to Seattle for 14th and tipping their hat to Seattle for not giving a 6th or C.) get ass raped

Either way - Broncos won't end up with anything less than a 14th if Seattle gets him, however this route won't even guarantee them Marshall - and if they really want Marshall they wouldn't take this route when they can simply give up a 6th.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 06:57 PM
Personally I wouldn't worry about any form of poison pill contract emerging from Seattle in joint with another team, such as San Diego. The NFL and obviously the owners in turn, have made a fairly obvious stance over poison pill's in contracts since they lost their attempt through the courts to outlaw the use of poison pills in RFA contract offers in 2006.

The Vikings, the year they signed Hutchinson with the poison pill contract, were met with a lot of animosity at the NFL owners meetings that following March. The next year the Seahawks used a similar poison pill to rip Burleson away from the Vikings. It wasn't until the Seahawks had their revenge that the NFL tried to settle with the NFLPA and it couldn't. Then went to the courts and lost. Since that loss not one single poison pill has been used in the league (07, 08, and 09). Also remember the Vikings used the poison pill only a year after new owner Wilf bought the team. A new man to the league who obviously didn't know the unspoken rules of it...

The NFLPA is ready to cry foul, since they feel its quite obvious the Owners have been working in collusion to ensure that what the NFL and owners feel as unfair tactics have been avoided league wide. I think it's obvious that the owners are in collusion though its impossible to prove.

I wouldn't expect a single team to make a poison pill offer, regardless of their regular season animosity for one another. The owners are a fraternity and business men first. They know the results of using the poison pill. Once used it will be retaliated with until it could spread across the league, with devastating consequences to one of the highly held standards that is RFA.

IMO it won't happen.

Let's not forget that according to several sources that the owners openly agreed to not use 'Poison Pills', the owner who allowed that would be hard pressed to find someone willing to trade with and so forth for awhile.

BigBroncLove
03-25-2010, 07:07 PM
I personally don't think it's as simple as calling another random team and they'll do it - there will be complications involved.

This will then turn into, if a team is say at the 25th pick is called up by Seattle to bring down the deal, and then a team with the 20th pick calls Seattle and tells them they'll sign Marshall AND give them a 6th round pick to move up to 14th... and it goes on.

Florio wasn't aware of any problems with the NFLPA if something like this were to happen, but I can tell you that it would be some grimy shit...

Again I don't think they take this route because they'd obviously have a contract written up for Marshall and the Broncos would know the exact details of the contract (they'd have to sign Marshall then trade for 14th) - but if Seattle threatened to do all this, the offer of 14th is still on the table for the Broncos... however if Broncos REALLY want to stand tall they'd just match the offer if Seattle tries and call say the Chargers to offer Marshall to a sheet.

At this point Seattle wouldn't get Marshall period, and they just wasted all that time for nothing.

My whole basis is the idea of Seattle really wanting Marshall - that's where all this lies on. If they really do - this route would indicate that they're pretty desperate in which they'd probably just end up giving a 6th. Calling another team to sign Marshall will still leave the Broncos open with 3 options - a.) matching the offer and keeping Marshall b.) matching the offer and trading him to Seattle for 14th and tipping their hat to Seattle for not giving a 6th or C.) get ass raped

Either way - Broncos won't end up with anything less than a 14th if Seattle gets him, however this route won't even guarantee them Marshall - and if they really want Marshall they wouldn't take this route when they can simply give up a 6th.

Well the NFLPA supports the use of poison pills, it favors the players since it allows them to achieve large contracts during RFA more regularly rather than waiting for UFA a year later... inbetween anything can happen to drop the players value and chance at a big contract.

As for the matching offer you have to understand poison pills. It's adding something in the contracts that the opposing team simply cannot match. In Steve Hutchinsons case it was a poison pill that would have made his entire salary guaranteed if he wasn't the highest paid offensive lineman. In Seattle he would not have been the highest paid OL man, in Minnesota he was. No team will pay an entire 80 million dollar contract upfront. The poison pill adds language to a contract that makes it impossible for the originating players team to match the offer. Just an FYI on poison pills in case you didn't know...


Let's not forget that according to several sources that the owners openly agreed to not use 'Poison Pills', the owner who allowed that would be hard pressed to find someone willing to trade with and so forth for awhile.

Agreed. The repercussion of using the poison pill far out weigh the benefits for the owner that uses them now.

Slick
03-25-2010, 07:20 PM
Question.

If we don't deal Brandon this off season and he turns into a UFA next year. We end up getting nothing for him (I'm guessing we could franchise him as well at that point) would we be okay settling for a second round pick, or a second and a player?

BigBroncLove
03-25-2010, 07:23 PM
Question.

If we don't deal Brandon this off season and he turns into a UFA next year. We end up getting nothing for him (I'm guessing we could franchise him as well at that point) would we be okay settling for a second round pick, or a second and a player?

That's a good question. His value would be completely different by next season depending on his production this year.... Depending on his season, if the Broncos felt they couldn't get any more value then a third for him, they could just let him go in UFA and try and push for a third round compensatory pick (obviously this is all barring a lockout). Otherwise I would imagine depending on his play and attitude everything could change in every possible way.

Mr D
03-25-2010, 07:26 PM
Well the NFLPA supports the use of poison pills, it favors the players since it allows them to achieve large contracts during RFA more regularly rather than waiting for UFA a year later... inbetween anything can happen to drop the players value and chance at a big contract.

As for the matching offer you have to understand poison pills. It's adding something in the contracts that the opposing team simply cannot match. In Steve Hutchinsons case it was a poison pill that would have made his entire salary guaranteed if he wasn't the highest paid offensive lineman. In Seattle he would not have been the highest paid OL man, in Minnesota he was. No team will pay an entire 80 million dollar contract upfront. The poison pill adds language to a contract that makes it impossible for the originating players team to match the offer. Just an FYI on poison pills in case you didn't know...



Agreed. The repercussion of using the poison pill far out weigh the benefits for the owner that uses them now.

Poison pills has been a hot case and while I can't be sure, I'm sure there's some sort of mutual agreement or understanding for teams not to use the poison pill since it hasn't been used for the past 3 seasons.

I really wouldn't worry about the poison pill - it's calling your wife a fat ass - while you can do it to get your point across you just don't do it. :lol:

Seriously though - I think if a team uses a poison pill they're just asking to become an outsider to other teams when it comes to trades... at the end of the day these owners are human and I can't imagine they'd support this especially with many agreeing to not use it.

BigBroncLove
03-25-2010, 07:29 PM
Poison pills has been a hot case and while I can't be sure, I'm sure there's some sort of mutual agreement or understanding for teams not to use the poison pill since it hasn't been used for the past 3 seasons.

I really wouldn't worry about the poison pill - it's calling your wife a fat ass - while you can do it to get your point across you just don't do it. :lol:

I know man. that's what my original post in this thread was all about. That poison pills haven't been used and likely won't. I was just explaining a poison pill since you said the Broncos should just match the offer sheet if Seattle and San Diego worked in tandem to make one (which would require a poison pill). I wasn't saying you didn't know what a poison pill was, just explaining it incase since matching the offer would have been..... impossible.

Buff
03-25-2010, 07:50 PM
I personally don't think it's as simple as calling another random team and they'll do it - there will be complications involved.

This will then turn into, if a team is say at the 25th pick is called up by Seattle to bring down the deal, and then a team with the 20th pick calls Seattle and tells them they'll sign Marshall AND give them a 6th round pick to move up to 14th... and it goes on.

Florio wasn't aware of any problems with the NFLPA if something like this were to happen, but I can tell you that it would be some grimy shit...

Again I don't think they take this route because they'd obviously have a contract written up for Marshall and the Broncos would know the exact details of the contract (they'd have to sign Marshall then trade for 14th) - but if Seattle threatened to do all this, the offer of 14th is still on the table for the Broncos... however if Broncos REALLY want to stand tall they'd just match the offer if Seattle tries and call say the Chargers to offer Marshall to a sheet.

At this point Seattle wouldn't get Marshall period, and they just wasted all that time for nothing.

My whole basis is the idea of Seattle really wanting Marshall - that's where all this lies on. If they really do - this route would indicate that they're pretty desperate in which they'd probably just end up giving a 6th. Calling another team to sign Marshall will still leave the Broncos open with 3 options - a.) matching the offer and keeping Marshall b.) matching the offer and trading him to Seattle for 14th and tipping their hat to Seattle for not giving a 6th or C.) get ass raped

Either way - Broncos won't end up with anything less than a 14th if Seattle gets him, however this route won't even guarantee them Marshall - and if they really want Marshall they wouldn't take this route when they can simply give up a 6th.

What it comes down to is this: Does the CBA expressly prohibit collusion between teams when one is trying to acquire a RFA from another team?

Everything you said might be true - but if there isn't a rule that specifically prohibits it, then you are expecting teams to act in good faith, and that is far from binding.

We will see another poison pill contract eventually - most refrain because they know "what goes around comes around" but if some team thinks they can get a franchise-changing player, then they won't care how many bridges they have to burn to get him.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 08:07 PM
What it comes down to is this: Does the CBA expressly prohibit collusion between teams when one is trying to acquire a RFA from another team?

Everything you said might be true - but if there isn't a rule that specifically prohibits it, then you are expecting teams to act in good faith, and that is far from binding.

We will see another poison pill contract eventually - most refrain because they know "what goes around comes around" but if some team thinks they can get a franchise-changing player, then they won't care how many bridges they have to burn to get him.

Even if the current CBA does not prohibit collusion, it would still fall into the category of 'putting your ass in a sling' with other owners category, it is looked upon with as much disdain as the 'poison pill'. So a team could in all likelyhood try to pull something off, but then they have to remember that when you need something or have a legit claim or issue bothering them as an owner, well don't go looking for other owners to back you!

Iron Horse72
03-25-2010, 08:49 PM
Seattle isn't dumb. They aren't going to give up the #6 pick when no other teams have shown an interest in giving up even a late 1st rounder.

I would be absolutely shocked if we ended up with the 6th pick.

This

Mr D
03-26-2010, 03:53 AM
This

lol it's not about another team not wanting Marshall - I had pretty much explained that in the original post.

:tsk:

Brand
03-26-2010, 09:24 AM
I think the 14th is a good value for Marshall. The 6th would be too high. If teh 14th were traded down, perhaps the "Smith for Marshall" crowd would be content with the next HOF Olineman and Smith for Marshall. If a fifthe or fourth could be coaxed out of the Hawks also, that woudl enhance the overall value, but not unduly so....

If he stays, I predict more issues in the future with him.....

arapaho2
03-26-2010, 11:49 AM
What it comes down to is this: Does the CBA expressly prohibit collusion between teams when one is trying to acquire a RFA from another team?

Everything you said might be true - but if there isn't a rule that specifically prohibits it, then you are expecting teams to act in good faith, and that is far from binding.

We will see another poison pill contract eventually - most refrain because they know "what goes around comes around" but if some team thinks they can get a franchise-changing player, then they won't care how many bridges they have to burn to get him.


when you burn all your bridges...soon you find yourself on a island

and thats why i keep saying it aint gonna happen that way

weazel
03-26-2010, 11:51 AM
I think Denver will trade Marshall and the 1st round pick (11) for Seattle's 2nd round pick.

Yup, that sounds about right. With the 2nd round pick, Denver will draft a 4'9" CB...

Championship!

claymore
03-26-2010, 11:57 AM
i think denver will trade marshall and the 1st round pick (11) for seattle's 2nd round pick.

Yup, that sounds about right. With the 2nd round pick, denver will draft a 4'9" cb...

Championship!

lmao!

Ziggy
03-26-2010, 03:23 PM
OK, I'm bored so I'll stir the pot on the Marshall trade front. I really don't want to start a 150th Marshall thread, so I'll just put it in here:

Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 am EDT

Jets QB Sanchez woos Marshall with birthday call?
By Mark J. Miller

Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall(notes) celebrated his 26th birthday Tuesday night by hanging out in a Las Vegas nightclub and guess who gave him a call there?

According to the New York Post, New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez(notes) gave Marshall a ring to see how he was enjoying his birthday. Some are seeing this as a reaching out by the Jets to try and get Marshall to come over to New York. The team has supposedly had internal discussions about trying to get Marshall from the Broncos, though they are pretty far behind the Seattle Seahawks, who have had Marshall come visit and have supposedly had actual trade discussions with the Broncs.

The Post also reports that the Broncos are no longer demanding a first-round pick be part of the trade package for Marshall.

claymore
03-26-2010, 03:28 PM
Id take next years first or this years 2nd and next years second for marshall.


Panthers still desperate for receivers
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 26, 2010 3:35 PM ET
The Panthers don't seem especially eager to bring back wideout Muhsin Muhammad, which makes sense. He turns 37 in May.

Unfortunately, they have no logical replacement for "Moose" on the roster.


"We've been in somewhat of a search over about eight years for that spot," Panthers coach John Fox said to the media this week. "We've had some guys roll through that role, and we're still in search."

You never want to draft for need, but the Panthers seemingly need to take a wideout in the second or third round this season. (They don't have a first-round pick.)

Dwayne Jarrett looks no higher on the depth chart than guys like Charly Martin and Kenny Moore. Steve Smith has noticed the Panthers roster looks like a little thin.

"We don't have a potential third-string quarterback or a bona fide backup quarterback," Smith told the Charlotte Observer. "We don't have a guy we're considering for [Muhammad's] spot. There's a lot of areas we're missing. So now, we're an unfinished product."

Ziggy
03-26-2010, 03:39 PM
Id take next years first or this years 2nd and next years second for marshall.

Getting a 1st next season for Marshall this season would be a great move. By the time the next draft rolls around, there should be a rookie wage scale in place, making high draft picks even more valuable than they are now. Like the NBA, it will be easier to build a team through the draft. You can take any player at any position without the salary cap being a factor. It will also make the system more forgiving for teams that make mistakes with high 1st round picks.

Lancane
03-26-2010, 04:46 PM
OK, I'm bored so I'll stir the pot on the Marshall trade front. I really don't want to start a 150th Marshall thread, so I'll just put it in here:

Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 am EDT

Jets QB Sanchez woos Marshall with birthday call?
By Mark J. Miller

Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall(notes) celebrated his 26th birthday Tuesday night by hanging out in a Las Vegas nightclub and guess who gave him a call there?

According to the New York Post, New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez(notes) gave Marshall a ring to see how he was enjoying his birthday. Some are seeing this as a reaching out by the Jets to try and get Marshall to come over to New York. The team has supposedly had internal discussions about trying to get Marshall from the Broncos, though they are pretty far behind the Seattle Seahawks, who have had Marshall come visit and have supposedly had actual trade discussions with the Broncs.

The Post also reports that the Broncos are no longer demanding a first-round pick be part of the trade package for Marshall.

I call bullshit!... Adam Schefter just reported two days ago that while Seattle is still the front runner to get Marshall, that Denver has not waivered at all in the cost it would take to get him. And I have remarked on several threads that there is no way in hell, that Denver would let him go for less...unless it was for multiple picks and a player and a pick. Seattle's 14th overall and Steve Vallos; Seattle's 60th overall pick and Chris Spencer...or something similar.

My friend who lives in Richmond told me that he has read on a blog that the Redskins could be part of a three-way trade with Denver, and though it could be nothing...the fact we use Washington like one of our trading whores makes me think it's possible. According to the blog, Denver would send Brandon Marshall to Seattle and Ryan Harris to Washington, in return we would receive Chris Spencer, Seattle's 122nd overall pick and Washington's 37th overall pick; Washington would get Ryan Harris and Seattle's 60th overall pick and the Seahawks would receive Brandon Marshall and Washington's 136th overall pick.

Like I said, it has no validity...but that would not be such a bad trade for Denver, even though I would like Marshall to remain.

EMB6903
03-26-2010, 04:50 PM
As far as the trade goes I'd rather Mcdaniels keep Marshall in hopes of Denver signing him in the future.

I really do think Mcdaniels wont settle for anything but a 1st rounder being involved.

Lancane
03-26-2010, 05:22 PM
Spencer Larsen already plays for the Broncos.

As far as the trade goes I'd rather Mcdaniels keep Marshall in hopes of Denver signing him in the future.

I really do think Mcdaniels wont settle for anything but a 1st rounder being involved.

Sorry...I meant Chris Spencer. And I'm one of those who would love to keep Marshall. But Chris Spencer is a former first round center, we would also have received two picks including a pretty high second rounder? Denver would utterly be stupid to pass on that, if it had any validity.

Personally, I hope we keep Marshall. Trade our 11th overall pick to New England for the 22nd and 44th overall picks and build with the picks we have.

Ziggy
03-26-2010, 06:04 PM
Sorry...I meant Chris Spencer. And I'm one of those who would love to keep Marshall. But Chris Spencer is a former first round center, we would also have received two picks including a pretty high second rounder? Denver would utterly be stupid to pass on that, if it had any validity.

Personally, I hope we keep Marshall. Trade our 11th overall pick to New England for the 22nd and 44th overall picks and build with the picks we have.

You are putting too much value on Chris Spencer. He's never lived up to his 1st round billing at center. That's why the Seahawks spent a first round pick on C Alex Mack in last year's draft.

Lancane
03-26-2010, 06:10 PM
You are putting too much value on Chris Spencer. He's never lived up to his 1st round billing at center. That's why the Seahawks spent a first round pick on C Alex Mack in last year's draft.

Alex Mack plays for Cleveland and was drafted by them. So that makes no sense at all... Spencer has done quite well in Seattle and the only reason they may part with him is that A) He's a restricted free agent and B) They have Vallos in the wings who seems to be quite a good young center himself. Spencer would be idea for the new power blocking scheme McDaniels wants to instill here.

:confused:

BigBroncLove
03-26-2010, 06:14 PM
You are putting too much value on Chris Spencer. He's never lived up to his 1st round billing at center. That's why the Seahawks spent a first round pick on C Alex Mack in last year's draft.

Few things. Seahawks drafted Aaron Curry last year with the first round selection. They drafted Max Unger in the 2nd round who is now their starting Center. Mack plays for the Browns.

I wouldn't completely say that about Chris Spencer. Spencer wasn't the heralded Center they were hoping when they drafted him but I don't think they drafted Unger because they were so upset with Spencer's play. Seattle was moving toward Zone blocking under Mora and Solari. Shortly after the draft Seattle officially announced the switch ot the zone blocking scheme, likely because of the loss of Hutchinson years before and Gray's (OG) continuing decline in play. The rest of their OL was better geared for that shift to zone rather than power blocking. Spencer doesn't fit into the idea of zone blocking and Unger could play both Tackle and Center which gave Seattle options on where to place him depending on need.

Lancane
03-26-2010, 06:29 PM
Few things. Seahawks drafted Aaron Curry last year with the first round selection. They drafted Max Unger in the 2nd round who is now their starting Center. Mack plays for the Browns.

I wouldn't completely say that about Chris Spencer. Spencer wasn't the heralded Center they were hoping when they drafted him but I don't think they drafted Unger because they were so upset with Spencer's play. Seattle was moving toward Zone blocking under Mora and Solari. Shortly after the draft Seattle officially announced the switch ot the zone blocking scheme, likely because of the loss of Hutchinson years before and Gray's (OG) continuing decline in play. The rest of their OL was better geared for that shift to zone rather than power blocking. Spencer doesn't fit into the idea of zone blocking and Unger could play both Tackle and Center which gave Seattle options on where to place him depending on need.

Good call BBL, Unger did start at center, Spencer was their right guard this year. Point is that he would still be a good addition to our team, we have a need and he fits the power scheme a hell of a lot better then the ZBS. Seattle also is pretty high on Vallos who is also a center who can play guard and rotated in...I think I got Vallos and Unger mixed up.

Ziggy
03-26-2010, 06:59 PM
Alex Mack plays for Cleveland and was drafted by them. So that makes no sense at all...
:confused:


Few things. Seahawks drafted Aaron Curry last year with the first round selection. They drafted Max Unger in the 2nd round who is now their starting Center. Mack plays for the Browns.


For some reason I've always gotten Alex Mack and Max Unger switched around. My mistake guys. I'm going to take my alzheimers medicine and sit in the corner now. :D

anton...
03-26-2010, 07:13 PM
fair enough value would be to trade picks...

us to get 6th and 14th and hawks get 11th and marsh...

i would like that...

BigBroncLove
03-26-2010, 07:21 PM
fair enough value would be to trade picks...

us to get 6th and 14th and hawks get 11th and marsh...

i would like that...

That would be tasty. Very tasty. I would like that very much too. I think any team would like that much value for one of their players, but even though I think the world of Marshalls abilities I just don't think he has that much value.

Trading up from the 11th to the 6th is 350 points in draft pick value, or the value of the 23rd selection in the 2nd round (55th overall). I doubt anyone would even be thinking of offering Marshall a sheet if we gave him a top tender for a 1st and 3rd round selection, let alone a 1st and 2nd in value.

Just my two cents.

Mr D
03-26-2010, 07:41 PM
fair enough value would be to trade picks...

us to get 6th and 14th and hawks get 11th and marsh...

i would like that...

That looks to be more likely than my original idea... +1

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 01:23 PM
All that means is we'll also have our 11th pick in the 1st round :cool:

Pete isn't a "first year coach". This is his second go-around.

They screwed the proverbial pooch by giving away their #40pick to SD. McD MIGHT have made a deal with that....but #60? NFW!

I'm not so sure they won't do a swap. Trade picks (6 for 11), AND the #60. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It'd open up a plethora of options.

TXBRONC
03-27-2010, 01:45 PM
Assuming that deal goes down with Seahawks and we get one of their first round picks I don't see us getting more than that. If we get multiple picks it because McDaniels is able get enough picks to equal a first rounder.

Ziggy
03-27-2010, 01:55 PM
Pete isn't a "first year coach". This is his second go-around.

They screwed the proverbial pooch by giving away their #40pick to SD. McD MIGHT have made a deal with that....but #60? NFW!

I'm not so sure they won't do a swap. Trade picks (6 for 11), AND the #60. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It'd open up a plethora of options.

That would be the equivalent of giving up a late 1st, and probably the most realistic scenario I've seen yet.

Lancane
03-27-2010, 02:04 PM
Pete isn't a "first year coach". This is his second go-around.

They screwed the proverbial pooch by giving away their #40pick to SD. McD MIGHT have made a deal with that....but #60? NFW!

I'm not so sure they won't do a swap. Trade picks (6 for 11), AND the #60. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It'd open up a plethora of options.

The athletes that have had workouts with the team are mostly high to mid second rounders...I don't see McDaniels risking missing out on his targets to climb in the first for who? Just to pray that either Suh or McCoy fall to him? Do we take Clausen?... I don't see Denver giving up the 11th unless it nets them another second round pick, but to move down in the second only to climb in the first losing a Pro-Bowl caliber receiver?...

That would be a pretty dumb move IMHO.

Ziggy
03-27-2010, 02:28 PM
The athletes that have had workouts with the team are mostly high to mid second rounders...I don't see McDaniels risking missing out on his targets to climb in the first for who? Just to pray that either Suh or McCoy fall to him? Do we take Clausen?... I don't see Denver giving up the 11th unless it nets them another second round pick, but to move down in the second only to climb in the first losing a Pro-Bowl caliber receiver?...

That would be a pretty dumb move IMHO.

His scenario didn't include moving down in the 2nd. It is moving from 11th to 6th, AND picking up the 60th, giving Denver the 6th, 45th, and 60th.

Lancane
03-27-2010, 02:45 PM
His scenario didn't include moving down in the 2nd. It is moving from 11th to 6th, AND picking up the 60th, giving Denver the 6th, 45th, and 60th.

Ahhh... Oops, my mistake...lol.

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 04:00 PM
I agree with other posters in stating that if we have to give up Brandon it would be nice to get the 6th pick, but everything points to this not happening.

If we really wanted to keep him he would have been tendered at a 1st and 3rd round pick compensation. We only tendered him a 1st as everyone knows which really was a big sign to all other teams saying come and get him.

Even though the team has stated that they want nothing less than a 1st round pick they really don't have a leg to stand on because they have made their intentions clear by not tendering Brandon at the highest level. All other teams know that it appears our FO is more interested in letting him go then keep him.

With that knowledge in mind there is no way Seattle is going to give up their 6th pick because, let's face it, they know we really don't want to keep him. Ergo he can be had for less.

It sucks but that is the way it is. I say keep him because he is better than the crap shoot we call the NFL draft. Won't happen though. . .

Teams using JUST the 1st round tender are doing more than just saying "here ya' go'. They're also using it as a way to determine the player's worth so they don't just throw money at them and over pay them.

Tennessee thinks TE Bo Scaithe is the cat's meow. 1st rounder
Indy - S Antoine Bethea. 1st rounder
Vikings - DE Ray Edwards. 1st rounder

If they'd put the 1st/3rd on him, they'd have had NO chance at getting him into a new contract. imo.

His head would have swelled even more (if possible) and next year would have wanted the moon.

I think this way, with the LACK of teams coming forward, it might be playing into McD's hands.
If he isn't given his 1st round pick, then he keeps BM.
And BM, POSSIBLY is brought back down to earth by the lack of interest he got from the other 31 teams.

But to simply say it's a "For Sale" sign on him, imo, is just too simplistic.

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 04:04 PM
Well, not to sound pessimistic...but we are talking about the same head coach and front office that alienated then traded a franchise quarterback. So anything is possible...

GMAB.

Who alienated whom? :rolleyes:

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 04:38 PM
If Seattle trades, they'll only do it if the guy they're targeting doesn't fall to them, which likely is one of the QB's.

Whitehurst. :coffee:

They need a new OT. They need WR. They need RB. They need D help.

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 04:42 PM
Personally I wouldn't worry about any form of poison pill contract emerging from Seattle in joint with another team, such as San Diego. The NFL and obviously the owners in turn, have made a fairly obvious stance over poison pill's in contracts since they lost their attempt through the courts to outlaw the use of poison pills in RFA contract offers in 2006.

The Vikings, the year they signed Hutchinson with the poison pill contract, were met with a lot of animosity at the NFL owners meetings that following March. The next year the Seahawks used a similar poison pill to rip Burleson away from the Vikings. It wasn't until the Seahawks had their revenge that the NFL tried to settle with the NFLPA and it couldn't. Then went to the courts and lost. Since that loss not one single poison pill has been used in the league (07, 08, and 09). Also remember the Vikings used the poison pill only a year after new owner Wilf bought the team. A new man to the league who obviously didn't know the unspoken rules of it...

The NFLPA is ready to cry foul, since they feel its quite obvious the Owners have been working in collusion to ensure that what the NFL and owners feel as unfair tactics have been avoided league wide. I think it's obvious that the owners are in collusion though its impossible to prove.

I wouldn't expect a single team to make a poison pill offer, regardless of their regular season animosity for one another. The owners are a fraternity and business men first. They know the results of using the poison pill. Once used it will be retaliated with until it could spread across the league, with devastating consequences to one of the highly held standards that is RFA.

IMO it won't happen.

The eagles just used one (though weak) when they offered up for RB M. Bell.

BigBroncLove
03-27-2010, 04:47 PM
The eagles just used one (though weak) when they offered up for RB M. Bell.

I don't think many people considered it a poison pill other than a few articles that wanted to stir the pot and stretch a story. A poison pill makes it impossible for a team to resign a player. This just basically made it that if the Saints did match the offer they would be making a commitment to Bell as a player. That he would be with the team unless they chose to release him.


Head coach of the New Orleans Saints Sean Payton spoke to the media today at the NFC coaches' breakfast and addressed the departure of RB Mike Bell to the Eagles.

"It's tough, and we were still discussing at 8 last night, but overall we looked at organization and this puzzle is bigger than just one part, which makes it hard. It's always a difficult decision with a player who meant so much the year before. [General manager Mickey Loomis] and I spent a lot of time on that decision," Payton said. "One of challenges of free agency -- Philadelphia is getting a real good football player -- is you begin to deal with your own economics and dollars. When Mike came to New Orleans we were able to get a young talented back that helped us in a lot of ways."

Honestly I thought the Saints would have let him walk without much thought. It's interesting that they labored so hard over it. Certainly makes it seem like they felt Bell's contribution to the team last year was important. Not important enough to fork over $1.7 million however...

As to whether the Eagles used a poison pill... I've noticed this report making the rounds today and I wanted to point out the facts. The Eagles placed a no trade clause in the contract Bell signed. The clause basically prevented the Saints from matching the offer and then trying to trade Bell to the Eagles or some other team later in the offseason. So, while the clause certainly did provide the Saints with some disincentive to match the offer, it can hardly be described as a poison pill. All it really did was eliminate the Saints' option to trade Bell.

The most famous "poison pill" was the clause put in Steve Hutchinson's contract by the Vikings that would have guaranteed his entire deal if he played a certain amount of his games in the state of Washington, which he would have if the Seattle Seahawks had matched the offer. Update: Got this backwards. Hutchinson had to be the highest paid lineman on his team and Burleson would have been guaranteed because of the geography thing.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010/3/24/1388134/sean-payton-speaks-about-losing

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 05:13 PM
Alex Mack plays for Cleveland and was drafted by them. So that makes no sense at all... Spencer has done quite well in Seattle and the only reason they may part with him is that A) He's a restricted free agent and B) They have Vallos in the wings who seems to be quite a good young center himself. Spencer would be idea for the new power blocking scheme McDaniels wants to instill here.

:confused:


Good call BBL, Unger did start at center, Spencer was their right guard this year. Point is that he would still be a good addition to our team, we have a need and he fits the power scheme a hell of a lot better then the ZBS. Seattle also is pretty high on Vallos who is also a center who can play guard and rotated in...I think I got Vallos and Unger mixed up.

Get your shit straight, 'cane! :coffee:










:D

Lancane
03-27-2010, 05:17 PM
Get your shit straight, 'cane! :coffee:










:D

Bite me...smartass! :D








:lol:







Post Script - It was an F'n error, I appologized, admitted such and there were a couple typos and so forth, so can all my fellow fans please lay off!








Post Script 2 - I'm kidding...if you thought I was serious, then you really are anal!














:laugh:

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 05:18 PM
That would be the equivalent of giving up a late 1st, and probably the most realistic scenario I've seen yet.

Exactly, and thanks, ziggster.

It's like the 28/29 pick. 650pts.

I'd have MUCH preferred it to be the #40 pick they gave to SD, making it equal to #20pick, but.........

Lancane
03-27-2010, 05:23 PM
Exactly, and thanks, ziggster.

It's like the 28/29 pick. 650pts.

I'd have MUCH preferred it to be the #40 pick they gave to SD, making it equal to #20pick, but.........

There is still the issue of being in a precarious position...like who the hell will Denver want at the 6th spot, if that happened so. Is McDaniels going to take Clausen, hope like hell McCoy or Suh falls? It's too early to draft Iupati, Pouncey, McClain, Odrick or even Bryant, let alone we have to factor in the screwed payscale...drafting a cornerback could get him stoned to death. Unless we are hoping for a fall, plan on taking Berry or replacing Harris right away or actually drafting Clausen then it could be worse then the 11th in some ways...just saying that it's something to ponder.

Lancane
03-27-2010, 05:46 PM
Begging your forgiveness, your nighness....

Did you NOT see where they'd get Seattles #60 (2nd rd) pick?

And who's to say another two doesn't switch with them on draft day? With them having different needs than Seattle, I could see someone wanting to move up for like Eric Berry, or Trent Williams who some were projecting SEA to be targeting.

Dumb is in the eye of the beholder. :coffee:

Highness? Why thank you RC...it's about damn time you realized it! :lol:

I did catch on to what you were saying after someone pointed it out. So are you insinuating that Denver will stay at take a player at the 6th or use it to trade down and add more? If not then my question is who the hell do we target?

And dumb is in the eye of the beholder, or those with higher IQ's...:D

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 05:49 PM
There is still the issue of being in a precarious position...like who the hell will Denver want at the 6th spot, if that happened so. Is McDaniels going to take Clausen, hope like hell McCoy or Suh falls? It's too early to draft Iupati, Pouncey, McClain, Odrick or even Bryant, let alone we have to factor in the screwed payscale...drafting a cornerback could get him stoned to death. Unless we are hoping for a fall, plan on taking Berry or replacing Harris right away or actually drafting Clausen then it could be worse then the 11th in some ways...just saying that it's something to ponder.

And who's to say another two doesn't switch with them on draft day? With them having different needs than Seattle, I could see someone wanting to move up for like Eric Berry, or Trent Williams who some were projecting SEA to be targeting."

There's a lot of talk about this year's draft being FULL of trades.

Let the bargaining begin.

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 05:55 PM
Highness? Why thank you RC...it's about damn time you realized it! :lol:

I did catch on to what you were saying after someone pointed it out. So are you insinuating that Denver will stay at take a player at the 6th or use it to trade down and add more? If not then my question is who the hell do we target?

And dumb is in the eye of the beholder, or those with higher IQ's...:D

Dayum! I deleted that post within 5seconds after I saw you misread the earlier one!

But since you decided to quote it....

...read my above post. ;)

Who's to say who's available at #6? I've listened to 3weeks in a row of Mock draft on Sirius NFL..and all 3 have been decidedly different.
If ya'll are wanting McD to take BPA, then what's the big deal? They could have the #1 player at "X" position for the next 10yrs, and use the rest of the draft to fill holes/grab depth.

Lancane
03-27-2010, 05:55 PM
And who's to say another two doesn't switch with them on draft day? With them having different needs than Seattle, I could see someone wanting to move up for like Eric Berry, or Trent Williams who some were projecting SEA to be targeting."

There's a lot of talk about this year's draft being FULL of trades.

Let the bargaining begin.

That's a valid point, I've said before that I think Denver would try and trade the 11th to maybe New England for the 22nd and 44th overall picks. The one issue I do see is who has the value or close enough to such to trade and move up in that scenario. San Francisco, Miami and Oakland are the most obvious of course, and usually I would be all for it. But with how some claim this draft is so stacked, would we get fair value for the pick or lose like we did last year when we moved for Smith?

Lancane
03-27-2010, 06:00 PM
Dayum! I deleted that post within 5seconds after I saw you misread the earlier one!

But since you decided to quote it....

...read my above post. ;)

Who's to say who's available at #6? I've listened to 3weeks in a row of Mock draft on Sirius NFL..and all 3 have been decidedly different.
If ya'll are wanting McD to take BPA, then what's the big deal? They could have the #1 player at "X" position for the next 10yrs, and use the rest of the draft to fill holes/grab depth.

Usually I would be all for the BPA, but with the holes we have? Eh...not so sure it would work. I would love to add Berry though, he and McBath could be a hell of a safety duo, like we had with Atwater and Smith, then Atwater and Braxton. I also would not mind us drafting Trent Williams to replace Harris is more then likely to be gone after the season. In the end, let's just hope we have a promising draft and not another head scratcher!

:beer:

Ziggy
03-27-2010, 06:03 PM
There is still the issue of being in a precarious position...like who the hell will Denver want at the 6th spot, if that happened so. Is McDaniels going to take Clausen, hope like hell McCoy or Suh falls? It's too early to draft Iupati, Pouncey, McClain, Odrick or even Bryant, let alone we have to factor in the screwed payscale...drafting a cornerback could get him stoned to death. Unless we are hoping for a fall, plan on taking Berry or replacing Harris right away or actually drafting Clausen then it could be worse then the 11th in some ways...just saying that it's something to ponder.

Eric Berry, Suh, or McCoy would be the most enticing if one slipped to the 6th pick. It's likely that 1 of the 3 will be there.

St. Louis- They take Sam Bradford if his shoulder checks out next week.
Detroit- Suh or McCoy are not a lock. The Lions need to protect thier franchise QB.
Tampa Bay- They take one of the DT's.
Washington- Shanahan will either go with a LT or Clausen here.
Kansas City- They spent the 3rd pick in the draft on a 3-4 DE last year. They can't afford to do it again, and have needs all over. They could go LT, S, or NT here. Eric Berry, the BPA at LT, or Dan Williams are all possibilities here.

That leaves a high possibility of Eric Berry, Suh, or McCoy at 6. Denver would jump on any one of those 3 IMO.

Lancane
03-27-2010, 06:11 PM
Eric Berry, Suh, or McCoy would be the most enticing if one slipped to the 6th pick. It's likely that 1 of the 3 will be there.

St. Louis- They take Sam Bradford if his shoulder checks out next week.
Detroit- Suh or McCoy are not a lock. The Lions need to protect thier franchise QB.
Tampa Bay- They take one of the DT's.
Washington- Shanahan will either go with a LT or Clausen here.
Kansas City- They spent the 3rd pick in the draft on a 3-4 DE last year. They can't afford to do it again, and have needs all over. They could go LT, S, or NT here. Eric Berry, the BPA at LT, or Dan Williams are all possibilities here.

That leaves a high possibility of Eric Berry, Suh, or McCoy at 6. Denver would jump on any one of those 3 IMO.

Of course they are enticing, but it is in all likelyhood not going to happen. Suh and McCoy, if we got either...well I would be happier then a retard at McDonalds for a birthday party! Eric Berry is a possibility, but I have a feeling that KC is going to take him. So we could still remain in a questionable position...of course we could throw Orton into the Marshall trade and then Clausen is very feesable...lol.

rcsodak
03-27-2010, 06:30 PM
Of course they are enticing, but it is in all likelyhood not going to happen. Suh and McCoy, if we got either...well I would be happier then a retard at McDonalds for a birthday party! Eric Berry is a possibility, but I have a feeling that KC is going to take him. So we could still remain in a questionable position...of course we could throw Orton into the Marshall trade and then Clausen is very feesable...lol.

1.Bradford
2.Okung
3.Suh
4.Claussen
5.Bulaga
6.Berry/McCoy/Williams/Mays/Haden/McClain/Thomas/Pouncey.

Yea, 'cane...I'd HATE to be in that position. :confused:

Lancane
03-27-2010, 06:47 PM
1.Bradford
2.Okung
3.Suh
4.Claussen
5.Bulaga
6.Berry/McCoy/Williams/Mays/Haden/McClain/Thomas/Pouncey.

Yea, 'cane...I'd HATE to be in that position. :confused:

Ehhh?

Sorry RC, I have to disagree on your value. McCoy, Williams and Berry are dead on, even Haden. Mays, Thomas, McClain and Pouncey are way off. Pouncey nor Mays are worth a top fifteen pick unless out of need. McClain's case can be argumented, though he is no Urlacher and he was the last ILB taken in the top fifteen, remember what happened to the inside linebackers last year? They fell and hard, so I think McClain will follow suit, my opinion though. Thomas is questionable, he is not a top fifteen pick by most opinions and the same with Pouncey, let alone that no center has been drafted in the top ten in well hell, I can not even remember the last and I don't believe Pouncey is better then those taken between ten and twenty in the last ten years...

Of course we as fans value players differently, so you may think of some higher then say myself.

rcsodak
03-28-2010, 07:43 PM
Of course they are enticing, but it is in all likelyhood not going to happen. Suh and McCoy, if we got either...well I would be happier then a retard at McDonalds for a birthday party! Eric Berry is a possibility, but I have a feeling that KC is going to take him. So we could still remain in a questionable position...of course we could throw Orton into the Marshall trade and then Clausen is very feesable...lol.

Well, I guess we can take what they say 'with a grain of salt', but KC has been heard to have said they would NOT be taking Berry.
Not sure why they'd make that public? But they did.

rcsodak
03-28-2010, 07:51 PM
Ehhh?

Sorry RC, I have to disagree on your value. McCoy, Williams and Berry are dead on, even Haden. Mays, Thomas, McClain and Pouncey are way off. Pouncey nor Mays are worth a top fifteen pick unless out of need. McClain's case can be argumented, though he is no Urlacher and he was the last ILB taken in the top fifteen, remember what happened to the inside linebackers last year? They fell and hard, so I think McClain will follow suit, my opinion though. Thomas is questionable, he is not a top fifteen pick by most opinions and the same with Pouncey, let alone that no center has been drafted in the top ten in well hell, I can not even remember the last and I don't believe Pouncey is better then those taken between ten and twenty in the last ten years...

Of course we as fans value players differently, so you may think of some higher then say myself.

I agree....and afterall, it's what McD and company have them pegged at, not us.
But this team needs a center, and Pouncey is rated #1. If he's going to be 'the guy' for the next 10+yrs, why not give him his money now? Afterall, that's all this slotting is about. Money. Right? ;)
Myself, I'd rather they wait and take the #2 Center.....he'll try harder. :lol:

As far as McClain goes, I haven't heard anybody say he's not worth a top 10 pick. In fact, some have him going to KC...and after that, Jax.

Thomas, from what I've heard, is said to be climbing. How they 'climb' without playing is beyond me, but.....
They say he could be the most NFL ready of the bunch, coming from the scheme UT ran. Plus, they say he's quicker at reacting and more likely to be where the ball is going. Myself, I hate him cuz he's a 'horn, but if he kicks ass on the field I'll forgive him.:D

Lancane
03-28-2010, 08:03 PM
I agree....and afterall, it's what McD and company have them pegged at, not us.
But this team needs a center, and Pouncey is rated #1. If he's going to be 'the guy' for the next 10+yrs, why not give him his money now? Afterall, that's all this slotting is about. Money. Right? ;)
Myself, I'd rather they wait and take the #2 Center.....he'll try harder. :lol:

As far as McClain goes, I haven't heard anybody say he's not worth a top 10 pick. In fact, some have him going to KC...and after that, Jax.

Thomas, from what I've heard, is said to be climbing. How they 'climb' without playing is beyond me, but.....
They say he could be the most NFL ready of the bunch, coming from the scheme UT ran. Plus, they say he's quicker at reacting and more likely to be where the ball is going. Myself, I hate him cuz he's a 'horn, but if he kicks ass on the field I'll forgive him.:D

You touched on an important part RC, that's the value and how kids rise as the draft gets closer. We know that their value is set based more on the year they had when they declare, that is why Rolle and Mays fell behind Berry and how Dan Williams surpassed Terrance Cody. After the season the rankings usually are set by the scouting agencies and draft experts; followed by the Senior Bowl, Shrine Game and then the Combine. During this time you will hear Mayock, McShay, Kiper and others 'pimping' players, and so they as much as the scouting agencies can make a kid's stock rise, this continues till the draft and can play an effected part in where some kids are drafted.

rcsodak
03-28-2010, 08:30 PM
You touched on an important part RC, that's the value and how kids rise as the draft gets closer. We know that their value is set based more on the year they had when they declare, that is why Rolle and Mays fell behind Berry and how Dan Williams surpassed Terrance Cody. After the season the rankings usually are set by the scouting agencies and draft experts; followed by the Senior Bowl, Shrine Game and then the Combine. During this time you will hear Mayock, McShay, Kiper and others 'pimping' players, and so they as much as the scouting agencies can make a kid's stock rise, this continues till the draft and can play an effected part in where some kids are drafted.

I knew that. :coffee:



















:D