PDA

View Full Version : More Marshall Rumours



WARHORSE
04-01-2010, 08:06 PM
According to the New York Post, Jets QB Mark Sanchez made a call to Broncos WR Brandon Marshall on his birthday last week. It's just speculation that perhaps Sanchez was calling to recruit Marshall, but the Jets have reportedly had internal discussions about acquiring the receiver.

Dave Krieger of the Denver Post updated the situation on Sunday, noting that the Seahawks, Jets, Bucs, Jaguars, Panthers, Redskins and Bears are all still in the mix, but that head coach Josh McDaniels would never let those last two teams get their hands on Marshall.

The Redskins have always remained on the fringes of the Marshall trade rumors. 'Skins coach Mike Shanahan drafted Marshall, after all, so there's a personal connection, although we can't know all of the ins and outs of that relationship. Asked to comment on his interest in Marshall by Mike Klis of the Denver Post, Shanahan said, "You'll just have to wait and see," with a smile. Klis speculates that the No. 37 overall pick (currently in the Redskins' pocket) would likely be involved in any trade. Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Mike Sando lays out a possibility for the Seahawks, and KC Joyner reminds us why Marshall is such a hot commodity:


Mike Sando
Follow me on this one
"Seattle appears to be playing a waiting game on Marshall. I think that could still happen, possibly around or during the draft. I'd like that option better than using a first-round pick for a player who has not had multiple 100-catch seasons. Receivers seem to be so hit-or-miss. Marshall is a hit from a production standpoint. And if the price is lower than a first-round pick, good for Seattle. What if the Seahawks traded back from No. 14, gaining a pick late in the first round, plus another second-rounder. Then Seattle could send that late first-round choice to Denver for Marshall before picking twice in the second round. That's just me thinking out loud. Lots of possibilities."

KC Joyner
Takes a lickin', and keeps on tickin'
"Marshall is not an elite player on a per pass basis. His 7.6 overall YPA last season ranked 49th among wideouts and his 9.5 vertical pass YPA ranked 55th. These totals are not anomalies in his career (he ranked 48th in overall YPA in 2008) and it indicates he isn't close to the Andre Johnson/Reggie Wayne category. Having said that, Marshall is an elite wideout in one area: endurance. For proof, consider that his 332 targets over the past two seasons is tops in the NFL and he did that despite not playing in two contests. He is that rare type of wide receiver who can handle being thrown the ball around ten times per game on a consistent week-to-week basis."

WARHORSE
04-01-2010, 08:08 PM
I wouldnt mind getting the Bucs two second rounders for Marshall and our fourth.

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 08:11 PM
"Marshall is not an elite player on a per pass basis. His 7.6 overall YPA last season ranked 49th among wideouts and his 9.5 vertical pass YPA ranked 55th. These totals are not anomalies in his career (he ranked 48th in overall YPA in 2008) and it indicates he isn't close to the Andre Johnson/Reggie Wayne category."

Interesting. So either the people saying it's "McDaniels system" are wrong, or the people saying "it's the QB" are wrong, in terms of Marshall and his YPA production the last 3 years.

Italianmobstr7
04-01-2010, 09:40 PM
Keep the Beast in Denver!

nevcraw
04-01-2010, 10:51 PM
Interesting. So either the people saying it's "McDaniels system" are wrong, or the people saying "it's the QB" are wrong, in terms of Marshall and his YPA production the last 3 years.

or maybe the the YPA means nothing..

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 10:53 PM
or maybe the the YPA means nothing..

Yea, it means nothing.....nothing at all.

April Fools.

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 10:59 PM
So, despite the fact that both Washington and Chicago are not in the same division, but are both in completely different conferences...this writer is saying that our GM/coach will refuse to trade him to those two teams, presumably because of the prior ties to Denver (Shanahan, Cutler)???

THIS is meant to be whats best for the team, or is this what is best for the image of McD?

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:00 PM
Yeah.. that YPA really is huge. I mean, that really shows that Marshall isn't elite. Just compare his numbers to the other Elite WRS in the NFL and see just where it compares.

Bosco
04-01-2010, 11:01 PM
Interesting. So either the people saying it's "McDaniels system" are wrong, or the people saying "it's the QB" are wrong, in terms of Marshall and his YPA production the last 3 years.

Marshall has never really been that good. He's a classic boom or bust type player who will have a great game one week and that disappear the next week. That's why I'm not at all worried about replacing him.

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:02 PM
So, despite the fact that both Washington and Chicago are not in the same division, but are both in completely different conferences...this writer is saying that our GM/coach will refuse to trade him to those two teams, presumably because of the prior ties to Denver (Shanahan, Cutler)???

THIS is meant to be whats best for the team, or is this what is best for the image of McD?

Lol at the Bears. Yea, we want their 4th, 5th, and 6th picks.

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:03 PM
Yeah.. that YPA really is huge. I mean, that really shows that Marshall isn't elite. Just compare his numbers to the other Elite WRS in the NFL and see just where it compares.

Or better yet, compare the TD's.

Oh damn.....

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:06 PM
Marshall has never really been that good. He's a classic boom or bust type player who will have a great game one week and that disappear the next week. That's why I'm not at all worried about replacing him.

I think Marshall's been very good and I think he's one of the best in the NFL.

Fortunately for us he probably plays the least important position in terms of team impact on offense and is probably the only position that's somewhat easily replaceable.

broncobryce
04-01-2010, 11:11 PM
So, despite the fact that both Washington and Chicago are not in the same division, but are both in completely different conferences...this writer is saying that our GM/coach will refuse to trade him to those two teams, presumably because of the prior ties to Denver (Shanahan, Cutler)???

THIS is meant to be whats best for the team, or is this what is best for the image of McD?

I don't buy it. Besides why would it hurt McD's image if Denver traded him to washington and got a good deal?

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:12 PM
I don't buy it. Besides why would it hurt McD's image if Denver traded him to washington and got a good deal?

It's more likely just speculation and assumption on Kreiger's part.

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:15 PM
I don't buy it. Besides why would it hurt McD's image if Denver traded him to washington and got a good deal?

well.. I don't know if "image" would be the correct word.

But the writer is flat out saying that McD wouldnt' let Chicago nor Washington have Marshall. The only reasons for those two teams to be mentioned is because of Shanahan and Cutler. So what would you call it, if a coach intentionally keeps a player away from the former coach, and the former QB, of the Broncos?

Not that I really believe that he would dodge those teams, but would is the writer suggesting would be the reason for dodging Shanahan's and Cutler's teams?

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:17 PM
Or better yet, compare the TD's.

Oh damn.....

They blow away Andre Johnson's...

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:19 PM
I think Marshall's been very good and I think he's one of the best in the NFL.

Fortunately for us he probably plays the least important position in terms of team impact on offense and is probably the only position that's somewhat easily replaceable.

I agree, and disagree with this Silk.

I see what you are saying, but at the same time, the NFL has become SUCH a huge passing league. Not to mention, more and more rules are put into place to help out the passer. Seems because of that, elite WR talent just comes that much more important.

OR.... because its becoming easier and easier for the QB, maybe its not as important to have the top WR since the passer himself is getting more time to throw the ball.

I can see both perspectives on that.

nevcraw
04-01-2010, 11:19 PM
Yea, it means nothing.....nothing at all.

April Fools.

Um.. not to burst your little smarty pants bubble.. but who throws you the ball and the O the team runs may have a lot to do with the YPA.

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:21 PM
YPA... Yards per attempt........ thats a stat I NEVER ever see used to compare WRs...ever. YPC is one thing, but YPA??? :confused: Makes no sense to use for a WR comparison stat.

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:23 PM
They blow away Andre Johnson's...

Johnson has maintained consistency throughout his career to the point where he's been labeled elite. Marshall isn't there yet. He could likely get there, but nobody was saying Johnson was an elite WR through his first 4 years, he was labeled as a young rising star with a lot of potential, just like marshall.

He has also had a significantly higher ypa than Marshall has. Marshall's has also gone down every year in his career. I don't think it means a whole lot but I think it can be argued asa a separation of status between the two.

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:26 PM
Um.. not to burst your little smarty pants bubble.. but who throws you the ball and the O the team runs may have a lot to do with the YPA.

How is that? JP Losman and Lee Evans like? Jake Plummer and Ashley Lelie like? Or Jake Delhomme and Steve Smith like? Take your pick.

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:27 PM
Johnson has maintained consistency throughout his career to the point where he's been labeled elite. Marshall isn't there yet. He could likely get there, but nobody was saying Johnson was an elite WR through his first 4 years, he was labeled as a young rising star with a lot of potential, just like marshall.

He has also had a significantly higher ypa than Marshall has. Marshall's has also gone down every year in his career. I don't think it means a whole lot but I think it can be argued asa a separation of status between the two.

Well.. I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think Marshall is absolutely Elite.... and if Andre wasn't considered elite his first four years, and Marshall has already surpassed Andre's numbers.... I personally don't feel there is anything to doubt about marshall's play. He's dominant. Doesn't seem to matter who's throwing the ball.

YPA, just doesn't mean much to me. That has a lot to do with jsut how many times the QB targets him. Has nothing to do with drops, yac, ypc, or the QBs accuracy. Purely based on how many times the ball was thrown AT him.

I have never seen any serious writer use this stat as a comparison for WRs.... QBs, yes.

Ravage!!!
04-01-2010, 11:29 PM
plus 4, 6, 2, 5, 8 , 8, 9.... isn't entirely consistent. Not to mention, not a single season has he had double digit TDs. I say this with full acknowledgment that Andre is an absolute stud and beast......

silkamilkamonico
04-01-2010, 11:29 PM
I think Marshall will be a top 3 WR as long as he stays focused and keeps his head on straight. For the sake of honest opinion I think his ypa is irrelevant. I don't see many other WR's taking screens 3-4 yards behind the scrimmage and then consistenly getting 7-8 yards on the play.

nevcraw
04-01-2010, 11:51 PM
I think Marshall will be a top 3 WR as long as he stays focused and keeps his head on straight. For the sake of honest opinion I think his ypa is irrelevant. I don't see many other WR's taking screens 3-4 yards behind the scrimmage and then consistenly getting 7-8 yards on the play.

rep. for getting it..

topscribe
04-02-2010, 12:02 AM
Yeah.. that YPA really is huge. I mean, that really shows that Marshall isn't elite. Just compare his numbers to the other Elite WRS in the NFL and see just where it compares.

49th and 55th. Doesn't sound as if he's anywhere near the elite receivers . . .

-----

JDL
04-02-2010, 01:26 AM
Interesting. So either the people saying it's "McDaniels system" are wrong, or the people saying "it's the QB" are wrong, in terms of Marshall and his YPA production the last 3 years.

Andre Johnson

2009 - 9.2yds/tar
2008 - 9.3yds/tar
2007 - 9.9yds/tar

Brandon Marshall

2009 - 7.3yds/tar
2008 - 6.9yds/tar
2007 - 7.8yds/tar

Larry Fitzgerald

2009 - 7.1yds/tar
2008 - 9.3yds/tar
2007 - 8.4yds/tar

Reggie Wayne

2009 - 8.5yds/tar
2008 - 8.7yds/tar
2007 - 9.6yds/tar

Anquan Boldin

2009 - 8.1yds/tar
2008 - 8.1yds/tar
2007 - 8.5yds/tar

Hines Ward

2009 - 8.5yds/tar
2008 - 8.4yds/tar
2007 - 6.5yds/tar

Calvin Johnson

2009 - 7.2yds/tar
2008 - 8.8yds/tar
2007 - 8.0yds/tar

Roddy White

2009 - 7.0yds/tar
2008 - 9.3yds/tar
2007 - 8.8yds/tar


Wes Welker

2009 - 8.3yds/tar
2008 - 7.8yds/tar
2007 - 8.1yds/tar


Question is whether Marshall's numbers are truly reflective of his ability. He certainly doesn't appear to be in LF or AJs class... but let's look at a couple things to consider going forward....

2007 - first season as a starting WR, how did others do in their first year and would you expect his numbers to go up from 7.8yds/tar?

2008 - Remember his 6.9yds/tar occurred during a season where he was recovering from an extensive hand injury with nerve issues (a reason he had so many drops) and a misdiagnosed hip injury which one would assume would limit his effectiveness.

2009 - Kyle Orton has a career 6.27yds/attempt, last season? 7.03yds/attempt. As his primary, did Brandon Marshall improve or hurt Orton's production?


My guess... the real Brandon Marshall is a guy who will produce a lot of catches, a decent 8 to 8.5yds/tar on avg and 8-10TDs. I think those are legitimate reasons his yds/tar is not higher. Are there concerns for a team in this regard going forward? Certainly, but I think it has been way overblown... he had 1 healthy season with a young 1st year starting QB with an arm. As you can see, injuries dropped other WRs way down as well and Marshall's YAC was way down that same year and probably due to the hip which did require surgery. Last year his YAC was back up, but he was getting the ball much shorter due to Orton's range. I mean Orton was suddenly almost a yard better and Marshall about the same amount down from his healthy season? Seems like Marshall probably brought Orton's numbers up and Orton probably brought Marshall's numbers down.

I would say it is probably pretty unfair to rip on him for this... he's a total douche, but with some consistency at QB (with a QB who actually tries to throw downfield some) and continued health from last season...i don't see any reason he wouldn't be in the high 7s at worst and probably in that 8-8.5 range.

Needs to go... but I think he is a hell of a WR on the field... not as good as LF/AJ but next level Boldin-type... with major character issues.

Traveler
04-02-2010, 05:33 AM
No 1st rounder as compensation for teams wanting him = NO BM in my book.

While not an elite receiver, he is a top 10 WR in the league.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 06:52 AM
I think Marshall is already elite...as a possession receiver. He's never going to be the type that puts up a 14+ ypc and his drop totals will always improve as long as he is still making plays facing the QB. I think that's what distinguishes guys like Fitz and the Johnson's as better than him. They can catch on the run a lot better.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 10:16 AM
I think Marshall is already elite...as a possession receiver. He's never going to be the type that puts up a 14+ ypc and his drop totals will always improve as long as he is still making plays facing the QB. I think that's what distinguishes guys like Fitz and the Johnson's as better than him. They can catch on the run a lot better.

Marshall has more TDs, catches, yards, and nearly the same YPC as Johnson (over the 1st 4 years). Marshall is also one of the best in the NFL (if not the best) in YAC. Considering all these factors, I don't see that Johnson (as an example) is any better than Marshall, and I don't get this "he's good only facing the QB thing"...because from what I've seen of him, he makes his most dynamic plays when going up and AFTER the ball.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Marshall has more TDs, catches, yards, and nearly the same YPC as Johnson (over the 1st 4 years). Marshall is also one of the best in the NFL (if not the best) in YAC. Considering all these factors, I don't see that Johnson (as an example) is any better than Marshall, and I don't get this "he's good only facing the QB thing"...because from what I've seen of him, he makes his most dynamic plays when going up and AFTER the ball.

BM has his share of great plays, but I still see his catching percentage a lot higher when he's facing the QB. I'm not disputing that he's a great player and definitely worth some coin. I just stand firm in that he's not a "complete" receiver and definitely not worth 10 mil a year.

I believe that if the system pans out this year and Royal is used more and the run game improves...that Marshall...as a Bronco...may very well never see 100 receptions again

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 10:50 AM
BM has his share of great plays, but I still see his catching percentage a lot higher when he's facing the QB. I'm not disputing that he's a great player and definitely worth some coin. I just stand firm in that he's not a "complete" receiver and definitely not worth 10 mil a year.

I believe that if the system pans out this year and Royal is used more and the run game improves...that Marshall...as a Bronco...may very well never see 100 receptions again

Well.. I guess we'll just ahve to disagree there. I think Marshall is every bit the player that Andre Johnson is. Andre has never caught 10 TD passes in a season. So if Andre is worth that kind of money I personally don't see how Marshall isn't.

But I see what you are saying about catching 100 balls again. That very well may be the case, and SHOULD be the case. I think he'll be a much bigger weapon when the ball isn't thrown at him every pass.

Spiritguy
04-02-2010, 11:23 AM
how about a bit more fuel for the fire?

If the Rams (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/st.-louis-rams/67051) commit to Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford as their No. 1 pick in this year's draft, a deal for Brandon Marshall (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/brandon-marshall/401579) could soon be in the works. A source close to the Rams told me that the team still has strong interest in the Broncos wide receiver. And that interest may spiral up in the coming weeks if the team is serious about making Bradford their franchise quarterback.

It's become obvious that no team is willing to part with a first-round pick to pluck Marshall from Denver, but the Rams could offer the next-best thing--the top pick in the second round. That would help the Rams create a more solid core of talent around their rookie quarterback with Marshall, wide receiver Donnie Avery and running back Steven Jackson.

link (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-hearsay-early-april-draft-buzz)

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 11:27 AM
Well.. I guess we'll just ahve to disagree there. I think Marshall is every bit the player that Andre Johnson is. Andre has never caught 10 TD passes in a season. So if Andre is worth that kind of money I personally don't see how Marshall isn't.

But I see what you are saying about catching 100 balls again. That very well may be the case, and SHOULD be the case. I think he'll be a much bigger weapon when the ball isn't thrown at him every pass.

I think the difference I make with Johnson and Marshall is different. Johnson is more of a difference maker to me than Marshall is. In the last 4 years, Johnson has 28 games with 7 or more receptions. In those games, Houston is 17-11. Marshall has 17 and Denver is 6-11 in those games. Why Johnson has never had 10 TD's...who knows. he likely would have eclipsed it in '07 when he had 8 in 9 games. But Marshall has only done it once and over the last 4 years, Johnson has 30 TD's to Marshall's 25

I guess we could debate and compare the two all day long, but I just dont think Marshall is in this class just yet...especially when you take the off-field crap into consideration.

I'm all for keeping Marshall at about 8-9 mil a year, but if we are offered a nice trade (unlikely) or are forced to spend 10-12 mil on him...I'm okay with him leaving

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 11:29 AM
how about a bit more fuel for the fire?

If the Rams (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/st.-louis-rams/67051) commit to Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford as their No. 1 pick in this year's draft, a deal for Brandon Marshall (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/brandon-marshall/401579) could soon be in the works. A source close to the Rams told me that the team still has strong interest in the Broncos wide receiver. And that interest may spiral up in the coming weeks if the team is serious about making Bradford their franchise quarterback.

It's become obvious that no team is willing to part with a first-round pick to pluck Marshall from Denver, but the Rams could offer the next-best thing--the top pick in the second round. That would help the Rams create a more solid core of talent around their rookie quarterback with Marshall, wide receiver Donnie Avery and running back Steven Jackson.

link (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-hearsay-early-april-draft-buzz)

That pick is probably more valuable than ever. It's a deep class of talent this year and teams have a full night to re-assess their wants and needs. If we had the top pick in round 2, we could surely come across a very nice deal for it.

Buff
04-02-2010, 11:35 AM
well.. I don't know if "image" would be the correct word.

But the writer is flat out saying that McD wouldnt' let Chicago nor Washington have Marshall. The only reasons for those two teams to be mentioned is because of Shanahan and Cutler. So what would you call it, if a coach intentionally keeps a player away from the former coach, and the former QB, of the Broncos?

Not that I really believe that he would dodge those teams, but would is the writer suggesting would be the reason for dodging Shanahan's and Cutler's teams?

I think this writer either misunderstood Krieger, or I flat out don't believe Krieger one bit. Why would McD be hesitant to ship players out to NFC teams? That doesn't make any sense. He's not dumb and he just did a deal with Chicago last year.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 11:38 AM
I think the difference I make with Johnson and Marshall is different. Johnson is more of a difference maker to me than Marshall is. In the last 4 years, Johnson has 28 games with 7 or more receptions. In those games, Houston is 17-11. Marshall has 17 and Denver is 6-11 in those games. Why Johnson has never had 10 TD's...who knows. he likely would have eclipsed it in '07 when he had 8 in 9 games. But Marshall has only done it once and over the last 4 years, Johnson has 30 TD's to Marshall's 25

I guess we could debate and compare the two all day long, but I just dont think Marshall is in this class just yet...especially when you take the off-field crap into consideration.

I'm all for keeping Marshall at about 8-9 mil a year, but if we are offered a nice trade (unlikely) or are forced to spend 10-12 mil on him...I'm okay with him leaving


I don't see how Johnson catching less passes, for less yardage, for fewer TDs makes him a bigger impact than Marshall. THat, to me, just doesn't make sense. Thats just two separate stats that don't really have anything to do with one another. :shrug:

Plus... you are comparing Johnson's best years, to Marshall's 1st four years. That takes out Johnson's early years and comparing them to Marshall's early year (his rookie season). If you want to compare their first four years, you have Marshall at 25 TDs and Johnson at 17.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 11:39 AM
I think this writer either misunderstood Krieger, or I flat out don't believe Krieger one bit. Why would McD be hesitant to ship players out to NFC teams? That doesn't make any sense. He's not dumb and he just did a deal with Chicago last year.

I agree.. unless he's suggesting because of the connections to Cutler (Bears) and Shanahan (Washington). Thats the ONLY reason I can think of as to why he thinks those two particular teams will never have a chance at Marshall.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 11:47 AM
I don't see how Johnson catching less passes, for less yardage, for fewer TDs makes him a bigger impact than Marshall. THat, to me, just doesn't make sense. Thats just two separate stats that don't really have anything to do with one another. :shrug:

Plus... you are comparing Johnson's best years, to Marshall's 1st four years. That takes out Johnson's early years and comparing them to Marshall's early year (his rookie season). If you want to compare their first four years, you have Marshall at 25 TDs and Johnson at 17.

Like I said...there are a million different ways to spin it all and we could do it all day, I suppose. I think Marshall is a top10 receiver...and Johnson is a top 3. I guess that's where I come up with the biggest difference in my book. I'd love to keep Marshall...but not at a Fitzgerald price tag

e-Lou-sive1
04-02-2010, 11:55 AM
Mike Klis of the Denver Post has stated that Mc Daniels hurt Brandon Marshall's chances of getting traded for a first round draft pick by publicly reprimanding him. McD should have allowed Marshall to play the last game and let Marshall showcase his talent one more time for trade value.

Mc D showed his cards too early for other teams to see how desperate he was to get rid of Marshall now Seattle and other teams are waiting for Denver to fold.

Marshall is expecting a lucrative contract either way and is leaving Denver in a precarious situation since they were the ones with the upper hand. Maybe McD will think twice (well not twice because Cutler was the first mistake) before he lets his ego get in the way.

underrated29
04-02-2010, 11:59 AM
I might be a little late in joining the topic, but IMO Andre Johnson is head and shoulders above Marshall... And I love marshall.


But lets face it. Marshall excells at RAC. He is impossible to bring down. Other than that he is just above average in the other categories.

AJ- Is fast, and just as big and strong as marshall, but he also gets open better, plays on a worse team, who up until recently had a horrible QB and no run game. AJ does not give up on plays and plays to his potential. brandon does not.

Brandon could be a Super Beast! But he does not play that hard, for whatever reason. There are times where he could flat out Bury guys on blocks, but he does not. He just gets in their way.



I would much rather have Andre Johnson on my team than Brandon Marshall all off field stuff aside. Just player to player. AJ is better. Brandon could be just as good or better, but for whatever reason he is not.

Northman
04-02-2010, 12:03 PM
I don't see how Johnson catching less passes, for less yardage, for fewer TDs makes him a bigger impact than Marshall. THat, to me, just doesn't make sense. Thats just two separate stats that don't really have anything to do with one another. :shrug:

Plus... you are comparing Johnson's best years, to Marshall's 1st four years. That takes out Johnson's early years and comparing them to Marshall's early year (his rookie season). If you want to compare their first four years, you have Marshall at 25 TDs and Johnson at 17.

Yea, i have to actually agree with you here. (holy crap)

Marshall to me has done more with less than Johnson has. Whether you want to blame systems, surrounding players, coaching, etc the fact that Brandon didnt drop off after losing a more talented QB kind of makes Brandon a little more special to me. Overally, Andre probably has much better hands but ive seen Brandon make plays that Andre hasnt. But, its not like i would kick either one too the curb on the field but Andre does have better character so he has that going for him. But on the field they both can make plays so i cant argue that.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 12:08 PM
Mike Klis of the Denver Post has stated that Mc Daniels hurt Brandon Marshall's chances of getting traded for a first round draft pick by publicly reprimanding him. McD should have allowed Marshall to play the last game and let Marshall showcase his talent one more time for trade value.
Mc D showed his cards too early for other teams to see how desperate he was to get rid of Marshall now Seattle and other teams are waiting for Denver to fold.

Marshall is expecting a lucrative contract either way and is leaving Denver in a precarious situation since they were the ones with the upper hand. Maybe McD will think twice (well not twice because Cutler was the first mistake) before he lets his ego get in the way.

Maybe the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

So if Minnesota sat AP for a game for discipline reasons, he suddenly wouldnt be worth a 1st round pick and it would be assumed Childress didnt want him anymore? Give me a break.

WARHORSE
04-02-2010, 12:31 PM
If it werent for the off the field issues, I dont know that I would want Andre Johnson vs Marshall.

Couple things Marshall does that I love. He goes over the middle. Hes physical and can punish DBs.....or he can make them miss in a phone booth.


The thing that separates Andre from Marshall to me is injuries.

Johnson has spent too much down time for my taste due to injury.


This is a physical game, and you need to be physical to play it.

JDL
04-02-2010, 12:33 PM
Marshall has more TDs, catches, yards, and nearly the same YPC as Johnson (over the 1st 4 years). Marshall is also one of the best in the NFL (if not the best) in YAC. Considering all these factors, I don't see that Johnson (as an example) is any better than Marshall, and I don't get this "he's good only facing the QB thing"...because from what I've seen of him, he makes his most dynamic plays when going up and AFTER the ball.

Couple points...

1) Those early Texans were a disorganized mess... he was a rookie on a 2nd year expansion team.

3) Capers was a defensive mastermind - the Panthers had very little good offensive coaching on that team.

4) Due to the issues of building a team from scratch and a team with a defensive mindset, the Texans offense was not particularly effective (particularly due to their horrible OL) at even creating scoring chances and I don't know that many WRs could do anything about that, maybe only Moss.

5) Only 1 of those early teams even mustered 300pts, it would be difficult for any WR to thrive in those circumstances.

6) In 2007 he really exploded on an 8-8 team, with a new QB who could more effectively get the ball to him and that's when he got his contract extension, he only played in 9 games, but put up huge numbers in those games and showed the talent everyone believed he had.


Ultimately, I think what you are missing the point on is potential versus reality. This is a today versus today argument... you can't predict what will happen tomorrow.... Johnson is the total package, right now, he was held back by circumstances then and as I stated Marshall probably is being held back by circumstances now, but Johnson always showed an ability to make all the catches. He put up big yards on few catches his first two years... the argument people are making around the league is that Marshall may only be a possession WR, he has not proven he is more... personally I think that is bunk, but I do not see Marshall becoming as good as AJ is RIGHT NOW. Honestly, Fitz was not nearly as good as he is right now early either, he was more of a sloppy route runner (per Champ) and really got by on athletic talent.. but he really became a complete WR.

Unfortunately for Marshall, he can't do that in Denver next year, he probably could with Mark Sanchez, but he really needs a healthy season with a good QB in a respectable (doesn't have to be great) system... to really see what his true upside is... because he's not there, elite short range and YAC WR who showed signs finally last year of being a good red zone target, but as of right now he is on a tier below the elite WRs in this league, the yards/target clearly show that... the main argument against him is the number of opportunities he receives (usually near the top of the league) and the low number of relative yards he produces with those opportunities... some of that was drops following his nerve injury and a hip injury that required surgery, but he still hasn't broken 8yds/target which seems to be a reasonably easy level to achieve for most good WRs... like I said, I think he'll get there, but in reality he is a different type of WR and that's fine, I doubt many here would kick Welker out of bed... and Marshall can do all those things and is twice his size (not literally) but can do things he can't... reminds me somewhat of what Sharpe used to do for us creating unique mismatches with an ability to occasionally get downfield and punish a D for playing up too much.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 12:46 PM
If it werent for the off the field issues, I dont know that I would want Andre Johnson vs Marshall.

Couple things Marshall does that I love. He goes over the middle. Hes physical and can punish DBs.....or he can make them miss in a phone booth.


The thing that separates Andre from Marshall to me is injuries.

Johnson has spent too much down time for my taste due to injury.


This is a physical game, and you need to be physical to play it.

2 injuries for a total of 10 games in 7 years is too much injury time?

LordTrychon
04-02-2010, 12:47 PM
2 injuries for a total of 10 games in 7 years is too much injury time?

His next injury could cost him a whole season!

:laugh:

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 12:50 PM
I might be a little late in joining the topic, but IMO Andre Johnson is head and shoulders above Marshall... And I love marshall.


But lets face it. Marshall excells at RAC. He is impossible to bring down. Other than that he is just above average in the other categories.

AJ- Is fast, and just as big and strong as marshall, but he also gets open better, plays on a worse team, who up until recently had a horrible QB and no run game. AJ does not give up on plays and plays to his potential. brandon does not.

Brandon could be a Super Beast! But he does not play that hard, for whatever reason. There are times where he could flat out Bury guys on blocks, but he does not. He just gets in their way.



I would much rather have Andre Johnson on my team than Brandon Marshall all off field stuff aside. Just player to player. AJ is better. Brandon could be just as good or better, but for whatever reason he is not.


I don't see how you can say that. We'll just have to disagree. How can Andre get open 'better', yet catches fewer passes? has had a worse running game than Denver (we went through 7 RBs in '08) and yet Marshall STILL caught 100 passes with Kyle "friggin" Orton throwing him the ball?

I also don't see this "Marshall gives up on plays" thing. I've never seen that. He sure must play a LOT of plays at full speed if he's able to catch more balls, more yardage, more TDs, and more YAC than Andre. Other than the flat out speed, what is it that Johnson does better (other than play for another team)?

I think North made the perfect point... Brandon's production didn't drop despite the person throwing him the ball and change of system.

But hey, as North said..... I wouldn't wish to kick either to the curb

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 12:50 PM
His next injury could cost him a whole season!

:laugh:

...and Marshall's next slugfest with a woman could get him the same. Which would you bet on happening first?

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 12:53 PM
Maybe the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

So if Minnesota sat AP for a game for discipline reasons, he suddenly wouldnt be worth a 1st round pick and it would be assumed Childress didnt want him anymore? Give me a break.

Come on, coach.

People on this board are not the only ones making the observation that the move going TO the public media at last years game, lowered the value of Marshall. Not because he's not worth the pick, but because now EVERYONE knows that Marshall is gone. Its not like Denver is dangling meat they intend to keep.

This has been talked about on every sports network with DOZENS of sports writers and ex-football players.

Its not the dumbest thing, if that SAME perception is alll around the NFL and the NFL talking heads.

topscribe
04-02-2010, 12:58 PM
Come on, coach.

People on this board are not the only ones making the observation that the move going TO the public media at last years game, lowered the value of Marshall. Not because he's not worth the pick, but because now EVERYONE knows that Marshall is gone. Its not like Denver is dangling meat they intend to keep.

This has been talked about on every sports network with DOZENS of sports writers and ex-football players.

Its not the dumbest thing, if that SAME perception is alll around the NFL and the NFL talking heads.

McDaniels would give one the impression he doesn't know Marshall is gone . . .

-----

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 12:59 PM
McDaniels would give one the impression he doesn't know Marshall is gone . . .

-----

Not really. He's trying for damage control, but no one is buying

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:00 PM
Come on, coach.

People on this board are not the only ones making the observation that the move going TO the public media at last years game, lowered the value of Marshall. Not because he's not worth the pick, but because now EVERYONE knows that Marshall is gone. Its not like Denver is dangling meat they intend to keep.

This has been talked about on every sports network with DOZENS of sports writers and ex-football players.

Its not the dumbest thing, if that SAME perception is alll around the NFL and the NFL talking heads.

If teams are saying that, it's because they WANT his value to drop. Roy Williams got Detroit a 1st round pick. Suspension or not...Marshall still holds more value than Williams.

...and if I'm wrong, I still stick to the fact that Marshall decreased his value himself. McD suspends him once and suddenly it's his fault. Bullshit

topscribe
04-02-2010, 01:00 PM
I don't see how you can say that. We'll just have to disagree. How can Andre get open 'better', yet catches fewer passes? has had a worse running game than Denver (we went through 7 RBs in '08) and yet Marshall STILL caught 100 passes with Kyle "friggin" Orton throwing him the ball?

I also don't see this "Marshall gives up on plays" thing. I've never seen that. He sure must play a LOT of plays at full speed if he's able to catch more balls, more yardage, more TDs, and more YAC than Andre. Other than the flat out speed, what is it that Johnson does better (other than play for another team)?

I think North made the perfect point... Brandon's production didn't drop despite the person throwing him the ball and change of system.

But hey, as North said..... I wouldn't wish to kick either to the curb

True. Says a lot for Marshall . . . and for Kyle "friggin" Orton, doesn't it? :coffee:

-----

topscribe
04-02-2010, 01:02 PM
Not really. He's trying for damage control, but no one is buying

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not making any judgments beyond what I hear . . .

-----

BigBroncLove
04-02-2010, 01:07 PM
Come on, coach.

People on this board are not the only ones making the observation that the move going TO the public at last years game, lowered the value of Marshall. Not because he's not worth the pick, but because now EVERYONE knows that Marshall is gone. Its not like Denver is dangling meat they intend to keep.

This has been talked about on every sports network with DOZENS of sports writers and ex-football players.

Its not the dumbest thing, if that SAME perception is alll around the NFL and the NFL talking heads.

Agreed. Simple value for a player doesn't talk specifically to that players ability and talent on the field. It's also his perceived value given to what other teams are willing to pay for him.

Marshall is a first round talent, I don't think there's much debate on that subject. What matters is what teams think they'll be able to get him for and the perception surrounding that. Marshall's obviously wants out of Denver if he can get a solid contract elsewhere. Teams know the cancerous conduct he had on the team last year and the fact that the Broncos would likely prefer to move him than keep him on the team. The way other teams are prodding but not biting for Marshall right now is a testament to that fact. It's a waiting game for them. To see exactly how desperate Denver is to move him, hence his perceived drop in value when he's obviously worth more.

Thankfully I think McDaniels and Xander know their business on this end. They'll call the bluff and either get what they want or keep Marshall on the team at his low RFA tender (whether he's unhappy or not, Marshall doesn't have a choice in the matter) unless he makes concessions on his contract (something I find very unlikely). So yeah, his value is dropped on the market... currently. Doesn't mean other teams aren't willing to pay more, but it's tactics to drive the price down. Much like teams wait out a player on the trading block they know will be released, then gobble him up in FA. Seattle and others are doing the same. I just don't think their pot shots will be met by a concession when the Broncs have the cards they currently have.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:10 PM
If teams are saying that, it's because they WANT his value to drop. Roy Williams got Detroit a 1st round pick. Suspension or not...Marshall still holds more value than Williams.

...and if I'm wrong, I still stick to the fact that Marshall decreased his value himself. McD suspends him once and suddenly it's his fault. Bullshit

Doesn't matter... its the perception of the devalue. We both know that going TO the media was the mistake, NOT the discipline. Going to the media about the problems, is what lowered the PERCEIVED value. That alone simply means that we most likely will not get a 1st for him, based PURELY on the fact that everyone knows Marshall won't be a Bronco next season, and THAT came from the fact that the coach went to the media with the in-house problems.

Take the side of McD on this, because it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the value WAS decreased.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:15 PM
Doesn't matter... its the perception of the devalue. We both know that going TO the media was the mistake, NOT the discipline. Going to the media about the problems, is what lowered the PERCEPTION value. That alone simply means that we most likely will not get a 1st for him, based PURELY on the fact that everyone knows Marshall won't be a Bronco next season, and THAT came from the fact that the coach went to the media with the in-house problems.

Take the side of McD on this, because it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the value WAS decreased.

...and that works to our benefit. If teams thought we were in love with him, then they sign him to a offer and give up the pick and it's done. But when they sit around and wait for the Broncos to crack, then other teams get involved and trade proposals start happening. Thing is...we hold the cards and dont have to trade him. So instead of being forced to match an offer to keep him, we can still keep him for his tender offer and now there is a bidding war if teams really want him bad enough.

This scenario works out to our benefit. We either get a nice offer that we like...or we keep the stud in Denver for a low cost. if a team says they are only offering a 2nd because they think we dont want him...we can tell them to look elsewhere.

WARHORSE
04-02-2010, 01:15 PM
2 injuries for a total of 10 games in 7 years is too much injury time?


Not only that, he played many times with nagging injuries. While I love the toughness, it did hamper his ability.


Just me though. Four years, and Brandon hasnt missed due to injury.

Thats more my flavor.


Im not taking away anything from AJ at all, I know hes a top player.

But I like the physical style of Marshall. The possession beast.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:23 PM
This scenario works out to our benefit. We either get a nice offer that we like...or we keep the stud in Denver for a low cost. if a team says they are only offering a 2nd because they think we dont want him...we can tell them to look elsewhere.

could... could not. If our team simply can't get the offer it was hoping, yet still is willing to take a 2nd because they don't want marshall here, then it's a loss. IT cost the team. You don't get best value for any product that is perceived to be "un wanted" by the owner. Thats when you get garage-sale offers.

I'd much rather weed through better offers, than try to pick between the weaker ones.

You are right.. we CAN tell them to look elsewhere....... but realistically, we'll end up taking it.

topscribe
04-02-2010, 01:25 PM
...and that works to our benefit. If teams thought we were in love with him, then they sign him to a offer and give up the pick and it's done. But when they sit around and wait for the Broncos to crack, then other teams get involved and trade proposals start happening. Thing is...we hold the cards and dont have to trade him. So instead of being forced to match an offer to keep him, we can still keep him for his tender offer and now there is a bidding war if teams really want him bad enough.

This scenario works out to our benefit. We either get a nice offer that we like...or we keep the stud in Denver for a low cost. if a team says they are only offering a 2nd because they think we dont want him...we can tell them to look elsewhere.

I certainly hope the Broncos are thinking that way.

We can look back to the haul the Broncos got in the Cutler deal, even though
Cutler said he wanted to clear out of Dodge . . . er, Denver.

-----

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:28 PM
could... could not. If our team simply can't get the offer it was hoping, yet still is willing to take a 2nd because they don't want marshall here, then it's a loss. IT cost the team. You don't get best value for any product that is perceived to be "un wanted" by the owner. Thats when you get garage-sale offers.

I'd much rather weed through better offers, than try to pick between the weaker ones.

You are right.. we CAN tell them to look elsewhere....... but realistically, we'll end up taking it.

And this assumption is based on what? The perception that McDaniels doesnt want Marshall in Denver? Seriously?

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:29 PM
I certainly hope the Broncos are thinking that way.

We can look back to the haul the Broncos got in the Cutler deal, even though
Cutler said he wanted to clear out of Dodge . . . er, Denver.

-----

Exactly. In that scenario we have a guy publicly saying he wants a trade and we still got pretty damn good return for him. What stopped teams from making lowball offers then?

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:34 PM
And this assumption is based on what? The perception that McDaniels doesnt want Marshall in Denver? Seriously?

Yes... seriously.

Thats the perception everyone has that has watched this situation. Listen to any of the talking head and anyone talking NFL.

I've always said that until we see what happens, no one knows. I realize that my guess is purely a guess, and openly admit it. But I'm fully convinced that McD does NOT want Marshall on this team, no matter WHAT he's said in the interviews as of late. We've heard these kind of things come from his mouth plenty of times. As of right now, I'm 100% confident that Marshall will NOT be a Denver Bronco next season. I'm just as confident now as I was after hearing of the benching last year. I honestly do not think that these two work together.

Hey.. if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. Marshall is still on the team and the Broncos are better for it.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:36 PM
Exactly. In that scenario we have a guy publicly saying he wants a trade and we still got pretty damn good return for him. What stopped teams from making lowball offers then?

Because the coach tried to trade the player before that comment was said, and, we are talking about a stud QB instead of a stud WR.

Also.. you have to take into account that not a single 1st round tender has been signed by anyone else. This obviously isn't a coincidence, and doesn't have anything to do with Marshall individually.

topscribe
04-02-2010, 01:37 PM
And this assumption is based on what? The perception that McDaniels doesnt want Marshall in Denver? Seriously?

I can't help but to believe McD would dearly love to see BMarsh lined up out there.

Who wouldn't, for pity's sake?

-----

BigBroncLove
04-02-2010, 01:38 PM
What really keeps the ball in Denver's court is next years uncertainty. The lockout provides many problematic options for all the players thinking of a holdout, sitting out the season, or other additional issues.

Marshall, if forced to play for the Broncos, has to play for a new contract the coming year. The whole reasons for this lengthy ordeal is because he wants A LOT of money. Any slackening of production on his part (if he has to play for the Broncos on the RFA contract) means less money for him, which means he'll have wished he signed that contract with the Broncos this last season. So he has to perform.

With the possible lockout, players (especially RFA players) need the money this year incase they have to make due on what money they earn in 2010 through 2011. So if Marshall has to play for the Broncos it's very unlikely he holds out till the cutoff date where he will be considered sitting out the season. That would mean fines, plus no pay for that period, where as normally he could sit out six games, make a statement to the team, and still get credit for the season.

Hence every organization with troublesome RFA's has more than enough leverage to try and get whatever it is they want for that player on the open market.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:39 PM
I guess it comes down to having one of three approaches to the whole thing. We can either be optimistic, pessimistic or realistic about it all. Whichever route we choose seems to dictate how we feel things will go down.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:40 PM
as one writer pointed out, there really hasn't been any kind of confirmation on this 'supposed' contract to Marshall last season that was 'rumored' to be 9.5.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:41 PM
I can't help but to believe McD would dearly love to see BMarsh lined up out there.

Who wouldn't, for pity's sake?

-----

Apparently ONLY McDaniels

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:42 PM
as one writer pointed out, there really hasn't been any kind of confirmation on this 'supposed' contract to Marshall last season that was 'rumored' to be 9.5.

Wouldnt shock me if nothing was offered. Probably appropriately so considering the actions of the player

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:43 PM
I guess it comes down to having one of three approaches to the whole thing. We can either be optimistic, pessimistic or realistic about it all. Whichever route we choose seems to dictate how we feel things will go down.

Tell me whats realistic? Because what I'm saying is realistic, is you saying is pessimistic. Maybe someone wants Marshall on the team, and feels that the Broncos wont accept anything less than a 1st rounder.... while another guy wants Marshall gone, so not taking the best offer is a pessimistic stance?

The only thing that determines if its optimistic, pessimistic, or "realistic"... is the individuals initial perception.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Tell me whats realistic? Because what I'm saying is realistic, is you saying is pessimistic. Maybe someone wants Marshall on the team, and feels that the Broncos wont accept anything less than a 1st rounder.... while another guy wants Marshall gone, so not taking the best offer is a pessimistic stance?

The only thing that determines if its optimistic, pessimistic, or "realistic"... is the individuals initial perception.

But you are assuming that McDaniels does not want Marshall in Denver. There is nothing to base this on other than suspending him for acting like a moron and going public with it. Maybe I'm crazy, but I really dont see anywhere in there where it says "I dont want you here". To assume that based on a strong dislike for the coach is a pessimistic approach.

Another person may say that Denver will either keep Marshall or hold out and get a solid first for him. That would be more of an optinistic approach.

But reality basically states that the front office of a team would field offers for a player and if they got value in return, they'd deal him. If not...they keep him. Not assuming a team would dump top talent for a pathetic offer just so they can rid of him is realistic.

Just my insane opinion though

Buff
04-02-2010, 01:53 PM
Wouldnt shock me if nothing was offered. Probably appropriately so considering the actions of the player

I think Klis is about as reliable as any beat reporter out there. If he has two separate sources that say a contract offer was extended, then I believe him. But I also remember hearing from another source that it was chalk full of clauses and stipulations, so $9.5 would have been in a perfect world and it would have been "agent suicide" if Marshall's agent would have let him sign the deal. So it's probably a bit disingenuous of Woody Paige to suggest that Marshall turned down a really great offer, but I do believe there was an offer.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 01:56 PM
I think Klis is about as reliable as any beat reporter out there. If he has two separate sources that say a contract offer was extended, then I believe him. But I also remember hearing from another source that it was chalk full of clauses and stipulations, so $9.5 would have been in a perfect world and it would have been "agent suicide" if Marshall's agent would have let him sign the deal. So it's probably a bit disingenuous of Woody Paige to suggest that Marshall turned down a really great offer, but I do believe there was an offer.

Rumor I heard is it was turned down because there wasnt enough up front money. Which makes sense in conjunction with your assessment

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 01:58 PM
But you are assuming that McDaniels does not want Marshall in Denver. There is nothing to base this on other than suspending him for acting like a moron and going public with it. Maybe I'm crazy, but I really dont see anywhere in there where it says "I dont want you here". To assume that based on a strong dislike for the coach is a pessimistic approach.

Another person may say that Denver will either keep Marshall or hold out and get a solid first for him. That would be more of an optinistic approach.

But reality basically states that the front office of a team would field offers for a player and if they got value in return, they'd deal him. If not...they keep him. Not assuming a team would dump top talent for a pathetic offer just so they can rid of him is realistic.

Just my insane opinion though


Again.. to YOU there is nothing that says this.

To me, and to MANY NFL players that I ahve heard interviewed... have said that this alone tells them (and me) that there is no way these two work together. Mark Schlereth pointed out that you NEVER publically question a player's toughness like McD did. Marshall saying that he wants out, McD putting only the 1st round tender on him, says that he doesn't want him here.

You can try and tell me that it doesn't. YOu can try and say that your perception is 'more realistic' because it doesn't go along iwht mine (and the other NFL players). But that doesn't make your perception MORE realistic. Its VERY realistic to believe that McD doesnt' want to deal with Marshall any longer... and its JUST as realistic to believe that he had his fill after last season.

So simply because I'm guessing that the realistic approach is one that McD doesn't want this particular player in Dnever.. doesn't make it a pessimist perspective...... despite you trying to twist it that direction. You just want to believe you are being more realistic than others, when thats not true.

You are just accepting a different angle of realism.

BigBroncLove
04-02-2010, 02:06 PM
Again.. to YOU there is nothing that says this.

To me, and to MANY NFL players that I ahve heard interviewed... have said that this alone tells them (and me) that there is no way these two work together. Mark Schlereth pointed out that you NEVER publically question a player's toughness like McD did. Marshall saying that he wants out, McD putting only the 1st round tender on him, says that he doesn't want him here.

You can try and tell me that it doesn't. YOu can try and say that your perception is 'more realistic' because it doesn't go along iwht mine (and the other NFL players). But that doesn't make your perception MORE realistic. Its VERY realistic to believe that McD doesnt' want to deal with Marshall any longer... and its JUST as realistic to believe that he had his fill after last season.

So simply because I'm guessing that the realistic approach is one that McD doesn't want this particular player in Denver.. doesn't make it a pessimist perspective...... despite you trying to twist it that direction. You just want to believe you are being more realistic than others, when thats not true.

You are just accepting a different angle of realism.

I think it's more than fair to say McDaniels would prefer not to have to deal with Marshall in 2010. I don't think it means he won't deal with him if the Broncos can't find a partner to deal Marshall, but I find your statement balanced in that sense.

I think what throws me off Chaz is what do you mean by solid first round when you're talking about an optimistic point of view? I think if someone thinks we have to get a high to mid first round pick for MArshall, I think the Denver FO is more flexible than that (and that could be perceived as optimistic). However there's no reason to believe that the Broncos, at this point will accept anything less than first round value (however you get there, such as some of the Marshall to rams thread has pointed). It may well be counter positioning for the Broncos because teams are trying to get Marshall for as little as possible, but I believe in this case the Broncos are sticking to their statement concretely. The Broncos want first round value for Marshall and won't accept anything less.

I do agree with you that the interpretation of that value cannot be properly quantified unless your behind the scenes with Broncos on this one.

claymore
04-02-2010, 02:08 PM
I see a 2nd round pick for marshall before I see him carrying us this year.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 02:11 PM
Again.. to YOU there is nothing that says this.

To me, and to MANY NFL players that I ahve heard interviewed... have said that this alone tells them (and me) that there is no way these two work together. Mark Schlereth pointed out that you NEVER publically question a player's toughness like McD did. Marshall saying that he wants out, McD putting only the 1st round tender on him, says that he doesn't want him here.

You can try and tell me that it doesn't. YOu can try and say that your perception is 'more realistic' because it doesn't go along iwht mine (and the other NFL players). But that doesn't make your perception MORE realistic. Its VERY realistic to believe that McD doesnt' want to deal with Marshall any longer... and its JUST as realistic to believe that he had his fill after last season.

So simply because I'm guessing that the realistic approach is one that McD doesn't want this particular player in Dnever.. doesn't make it a pessimist perspective...... despite you trying to twist it that direction. You just want to believe you are being more realistic than others, when thats not true.

You are just accepting a different angle of realism.

I dont know that my assessment is as ego-driven as you like to play it out to be, but...whatever.

My assessment is that the approach people are taking in this being the writing on the wall for Marshall to be dealt is based purely on speculation. Schlereth is the icon of the answer to this? Marshall is the first player to be called out by a coach and NOT traded afterward? Only putting a first round tender on a player instead of a 1st and 3rd means you dont want him? Where are these rules written? Show me where this is more than speculation driven by people questioning of McDaniels as a coach and personnel guy.

I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong...I just need more than assumptions and Mark Schlereth before I buy into the conspiracy theory

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 02:13 PM
I think it's more than fair to say McDaniels would prefer not to have to deal with Marshall in 2010. I don't think it means he won't deal with him if the Broncos can't find a partner to deal Marshall, but I find your statement balanced in that sense.

I think what throws me off Chaz is what do you mean by solid first round when you're talking about an optimistic point of view? I think if someone thinks we have to get a high to mid first round pick for MArshall, I think the Denver FO is more flexible than that (and that could be perceived as optimistic). However there's no reason to believe that the Broncos, at this point will accept anything less than first round value (however you get there, such as some of the Marshall to rams thread has pointed). It may well be counter positioning for the Broncos because teams are trying to get Marshall for as little as possible, but I believe in this case the Broncos are sticking to their statement concretely. The Broncos want first round value for Marshall and won't accept anything less.

I do agree with you that the interpretation of that value cannot be properly quantified unless your behind the scenes with Broncos on this one.

I was just using my scenarios as exapmples. Nothing more

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 02:25 PM
I think it's more than fair to say McDaniels would prefer not to have to deal with Marshall in 2010. I don't think it means he won't deal with him if the Broncos can't find a partner to deal Marshall, but I find your statement balanced in that sense.

I think what throws me off Chaz is what do you mean by solid first round when you're talking about an optimistic point of view? I think if someone thinks we have to get a high to mid first round pick for MArshall, I think the Denver FO is more flexible than that (and that could be perceived as optimistic). However there's no reason to believe that the Broncos, at this point will accept anything less than first round value (however you get there, such as some of the Marshall to rams thread has pointed). It may well be counter positioning for the Broncos because teams are trying to get Marshall for as little as possible, but I believe in this case the Broncos are sticking to their statement concretely. The Broncos want first round value for Marshall and won't accept anything less.

I do agree with you that the interpretation of that value cannot be properly quantified unless your behind the scenes with Broncos on this one.

I was just using my scenarios as examples. Nothing more

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 02:31 PM
I dont know that my assessment is as ego-driven as you like to play it out to be, but...whatever.

My assessment is that the approach people are taking in this being the writing on the wall for Marshall to be dealt is based purely on speculation. Schlereth is the icon of the answer to this? Marshall is the first player to be called out by a coach and NOT traded afterward? Only putting a first round tender on a player instead of a 1st and 3rd means you dont want him? Where are these rules written? Show me where this is more than speculation driven by people questioning of McDaniels as a coach and personnel guy.

I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong...I just need more than assumptions and Mark Schlereth before I buy into the conspiracy theory


Of course I understand what you are saying, and each individual point you make makes sense... however.... its the WHOLE that we are talking. Its the accumulation of these separate parts. Its the 'feel' you get from the coach and his personality.. or the observations there of. Also.. Mark Schlereth is a SINGLE example... please don't make me go and type up, print up, and look up the MANY examples of people making many of the same points that Schlereth has. Thats not the point. He was just one of many, and of course his name is well known around here.

But you'll have to give me more than "well, he does want him here" to prove, to me, that nothing in the past is still relevant to the situation. Or that somehow McD is going to simply look past the behavior of last season, or the comments by Marahsll... or knowing that he'll have to continue to coach Brandon without feeling he's 100% "buying into" the coach/system.

I have absolutely no reason, to believe that Marshall is someone McD wants on this roster based on everything I personally have observed. I believe those observations, along with taking in the observations and comments from many around the NFL and ex-players, are just as viable and realistic as those that don't believe the same.

You are assuming that McD does want him on the team and is willing to keep him. I don't think thats any less of an assumption than mine.

CoachChaz
04-02-2010, 02:34 PM
Of course I understand what you are saying, and each individual point you make makes sense... however.... its the WHOLE that we are talking. Its the accumulation of these separate parts. Its the 'feel' you get from the coach and his personality.. or the observations there of. Also.. Mark Schlereth is a SINGLE example... please don't make me go and type up, print up, and look up the MANY examples of people making many of the same points that Schlereth has. Thats not the point. He was just one of many, and of course his name is well known around here.

But you'll have to give me more than "well, he does want him here" to prove, to me, that nothing in the past is still relevant to the situation. Or that somehow McD is going to simply look past the behavior of last season, or the comments by Marahsll... or knowing that he'll have to continue to coach Brandon without feeling he's 100% "buying into" the coach/system.

I have absolutely no reason, to believe that Marshall is someone McD wants on this roster based on everything I personally have observed. I believe those observations, along with taking in the observations and comments from many around the NFL and ex-players, are just as viable and realistic as those that don't believe the same.

You are assuming that McD does want him on the team and is willing to keep him. I don't think thats any less of an assumption than mine.

The ONLY assumption I'm making is that the front office will do what is best for the team. I dont know if McD wants him here or not and I can admit I dont know that. I can see reasons why he would as well as why he wouldnt. I just dont see the assumptions of former players and talking heads as valid information in this situation. I ASSUME Denver will not deal him away for the sole purpose of being rid of him.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 03:04 PM
The ONLY assumption I'm making is that the front office will do what is best for the team. I dont know if McD wants him here or not and I can admit I dont know that. I can see reasons why he would as well as why he wouldnt. I just dont see the assumptions of former players and talking heads as valid information in this situation. I ASSUME Denver will not deal him away for the sole purpose of being rid of him.

Ahhh.. I think my only point in bringing those outside, in the media, up was that you commented on another poster's statement. I'm just saying he's not the only person around America that believes/sees that McD did in fact lower Marshall's value by taking it to the forefront with the problems rather than keeping it in house.

Also... if people outside the Bronco fan base, whether thats the ex-players or talking heads, can see that that value of Marshall is lowered based on the actions of the coach, then why wouldn't we believe that the GMs/coaches of the other teams see/believe the same things?

I guess I believe that the desire to rid of Marshall is stronger for the coach than you do, and thats where our perspective forks from the beginning.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 04:21 PM
Trade him. Please. The guy is a great WR, but our team can move on without Marshall. He wasn't even catching touchdowns and balls consistently until maybe week 4, week 5. Although the guy is a talent, we were still 2-8 with him on the field. Marshall didn't change or do anything for the Broncos. I'm really hoping he isn't a Bronco in 2010. IMO it's too risky to invest in a guy who is 1 off-field issue away from an 8 game to a year suspension. Look at all the NFL teams NOT rushing to the phone to deal for Marshall. Whats going to happen in Denver if he's arrested again? No thanks. Trade him for a second for all i care.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Trade him. Please. The guy is a great WR, but our team can move on without Marshall. He wasn't even catching touchdowns and balls consistently until maybe week 4, week 5. Although the guy is a talent, we were still 2-8 with him on the field. Marshall didn't change or do anything for the Broncos. I'm really hoping he isn't a Bronco in 2010. IMO it's too risky to invest in a guy who is 1 off-field issue away from an 8 game to a year suspension. Look at all the NFL teams NOT rushing to the phone to deal for Marshall. Whats going to happen in Denver if he's arrested again? No thanks. Trade him for a second for all i care.

Might as well get rid of Royal, Clady, Doom, Champ... Dawkins... DJ... Moreno...... cause we were still 2-8 with them on the field as well.

LordTrychon
04-02-2010, 05:01 PM
Might as well get rid of Royal, Clady, Doom, Champ... Dawkins... DJ... Moreno...... cause we were still 2-8 with them on the field as well.

And the coach. He may not have played... but I think he was in attendance for all those games...

(and Marshall missed one... don't let us forget. lol)

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 05:07 PM
And the coach. He may not have played... but I think he was in attendance for all those games...

(and Marshall missed one... don't let us forget. lol)

Yeup.. he was on the field. Sooo.. I've lost count. Which players did we have that were on the team, that didn't go 2-8?

broncobryce
04-02-2010, 05:26 PM
Yeup.. he was on the field. Sooo.. I've lost count. Which players did we have that were on the team, that didn't go 2-8?

Which players are bitching about contracts, getting arrested, and not wanting to practice because they can't breathe when it's cold?

LordTrychon
04-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Yeup.. he was on the field. Sooo.. I've lost count. Which players did we have that were on the team, that didn't go 2-8?

Jamal Williams?

BigBroncLove
04-02-2010, 05:31 PM
Jamal Williams?

I think Ryan Harris too... he got injured so couldn't be there for the majority of that 2-8 run. Let's not forget Chris Simms! :laugh: (he didnt play an entire game through the whole season)

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 05:41 PM
Might as well get rid of Royal, Clady, Doom, Champ... Dawkins... DJ... Moreno...... cause we were still 2-8 with them on the field as well.

No, not "might as well get rid of all them," thats an immature way to go about it, might as well get rid of the cancer we have in #15. I like the guy, I like the way he plays football, but there are numerous off the field issues with Marshall, unlike any of those guys you just mentioned. Marshall is literally ONE off-field issue away from a lengthy suspension from Mr. Roger. Marshall currently isn't in a position where he can demand all this money, and expect the Broncos to give it to him. One minute he is demanding a trade, then he is punting a football in camp that leads to suspension, then catching footballs with a "new" attitude", then he sits out the last contest against the Chiefs because of a minor hamstring injury, thats without including the arrests and trade demands before that.

Marshall is too up and down, too risky, too much of a diva. Productive? Yes, but my point is, we were still 2-8 with Marshall down the stretch. A receiver with attitude problems is certainly not in my plans if I'm building a football team. I'm looking to build the trenches and clear the divas, the hot heads, the babies. We all want the Broncos to get better, but the truth is they wont get better with Marshall under contract. If Marshall is willing to sign a contract with clauses about arrests, or disputes included, then I'm all for it, but I'm willing to bet Marshall is looking for a large, large chunk of guaranteed money, without clauses. Why do that? Say they do sign him long term, and he gets into more trouble? Thats the risk the Broncos or any team are taking with Marshall. You may get talent, but you are also setting your team up for a potential let down, or a failed investment. Thats why teams aren't doing it.

Dawkins, Clady, Bailey, Moreno, DJ, Doom - since when are any of these guys comparable to Marshall? When have these guys quit on the team or acted like a dick during the season or in camp? When have any of these guys demanded a trade or clashed numerous times with the head coach? There are plenty of question marks surrounding Marshall, and none surrounding any of the above players. Thats why they are valuable to the team, and Marshall isn't AS valuable, PURLEY because of his history, NOT his talent. Marshall isn't the missing piece to the Broncos. We have a chance to use him as a stepping stone for players who can come in and help us in the positions we need.

Again. Marshall, WR, with multiple off-field issues, dollar sign pupils, and an attitude problem. The guy instigated gang members for christ sake. This isn't the area you address, or the player you want, when you are BUILDING a football team.

I love him as a football player. But I don't value his decision making skills, which historically has been the problem for Marshall.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 05:51 PM
No... You said
"...Although the guy is a talent, we were still 2-8 with him on the field. Marshall didn't change or do anything for the Broncos..."

Now I'm only going to use your post as an example, and not directly at you, as I've seen this kind of logic posted elsewhere. If you wish to get rid of Marshall for other reasons (as you posted in this last post), fine. But my post was a direct response to THIS quote.

Its absurd. Its ridiculous.

Other than Clady, Marshall is the ONLY player that we, as Bronco fans, can say is a keeper for EVERY team in the NFL. Marshall is the best player we have. He is the most dynamic player on the field in almost every football game we play... counting BOTH teams.

To say that this team, didn't gain anything with Marshall on the field..... is an ABSURD comment no matter what you may feel about him. It makes no sense, and it has no logic to it..... which is why I made the ridiculous and exaggerated response that I did.

If you are going to make a blind and immature statement like that, then it deserves one in return. There isn't a player on the team that didn't go 2-8..... and NONE did MORE for this team than Marshall did.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 06:06 PM
And regarding some other posters comments about players who were also on the field when the Broncos were 2-8, you can be sarcastic about it, or laugh about it, or make jokes about it, but the front office and numerous other teams are seeing the same thing.

Broncos first 6 games : Marshall 29 receptions, 332 yards, 4 TD
5 rec, 55 yards, .66 TD game on average.

What won us those games were defense and a balanced offense attack. Not a talented wide-out with question marks. Yes, he was on the field, contributing. But the players who matter the most are the ones we don't have, offensive centers/guards and defensive tackles and ends. We have a chance to use Marshall to get some of those players, who will help us win games, and not carry a burden. If you want to build a football team, you address those positions first, not attend to a diva wide-out with large contract demands and an attitude problem.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 06:08 PM
yeah.. Marshall's remaining 70 catches and 6 TDs lost us those games. That makes sense. You throw him the ball, he catches it, and its his fault we lost. Gotcha :coffee:

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 06:20 PM
No... You said

Now I'm only going to use your post as an example, and not directly at you, as I've seen this kind of logic posted elsewhere. If you wish to get rid of Marshall for other reasons (as you posted in this last post), fine. But my post was a direct response to THIS quote.

Its absurd. Its ridiculous.

Other than Clady, Marshall is the ONLY player that we, as Bronco fans, can say is a keeper for EVERY team in the NFL. Marshall is the best player we have. He is the most dynamic player on the field in almost every football game we play... counting BOTH teams.

To say that this team, didn't gain anything with Marshall on the field..... is an ABSURD comment no matter what you may feel about him. It makes no sense, and it has no logic to it..... which is why I made the ridiculous and exaggerated response that I did.

If you are going to make a blind and immature statement like that, then it deserves one in return. There isn't a player on the team that didn't go 2-8..... and NONE did MORE for this team than Marshall did.


Not ABSURD, or IMMATURE, thats pretty dramatic Ravage. Your taking my 2-8 statement and turning it into something different.

REMOVE Brandon Marshall for the last 10 games. Can it get much worse than 2-8? No, no it can't. Put Marshall in for the last 10 games. We are still 2-8.

But wait, we were missing other players!!! Thats not fair to say that when we are missing other players too! Thats my point guy. We are missing those players. We need to GET those players, (G, OC, LB, DE, DT) through the draft, via Marshall, who as i repeat, one arrest away.

You value Marshall's talent, his DYNAMIC abilities, over his character, his heart and his maturity. Thats exactly why you aren't an NFL head coach. And thats exactly why McD is looking to trade him, because of all those flaws. You value a guy who stays clean and does his job, and if your going to pay someone top dollar, they better have the brain to go along with the talent. And Marshall just doesn't.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 06:23 PM
You value Marshall's talent, his DYNAMIC abilities, over his character, his heart and his maturity. Thats exactly why you aren't an NFL head coach. And thats exactly why McD is looking to trade him, because of all those flaws. You value a guy who stays clean and does his job, and if your going to pay someone top dollar, they better have the brain to go along with the talent. And Marshall just doesn't.

:lol: Is that the reason????? :lol:

You are right. I've never seen a GM or a coach hire players that don't have the same 'values' that you do. Nor have I ever seen a team win a Super Bowl with players who's character (off the field) is questionable.

Yeah.. thats why I'm not an NFL coach.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 06:33 PM
yeah.. Marshall's remaining 70 catches and 6 TDs lost us those games. That makes sense. You throw him the ball, he catches it, and its his fault we lost. Gotcha :coffee:

You just keep chasing the tail, hoping to catch it, but not getting the picture that the outcome will be the same every time. Investing in a WR who really isn't helping this football team move forward. Trade him for the players we need to build a football team. Then when we need a wideout, lets try and get one without:

4 arrests
a history of domestic violence
team suspensions
quitting on the team
demanding trades
dollar sign pupils
and instigating gang members

Again, i like Marshall. If it wasn't for all these things, it would be foolish not to want to keep him. But thats just not the reality of it. And the reality of the NFL is when you are building a team, do it from the trenches out, invest in high character and veterans who can teach on and off the field. Ones you can count on on the field AND off the field.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 06:40 PM
YOu keep pointing out his past as if I don't understand the risk. You KEEP trying to tell me that GOOD players don't make a difference, and that trading them away is going to make the team BETTER. Sorry if I don't bye into the logic. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't buy that trading your best players makes you a better team, DESPITE the fact that your team went 2-8. There isn't a player on the roster that would have made a difference there. The fact that you even brought up the catches in the first couple wins, to me, shows that you aren't thinking logically... and you actually believe that the team is BETTER off without the most dynamic player on the field.

Thats backwards to me. But thats fine if thats how you feel. Thats great if thats what you want. I know all the lil stats you keep throwing up at me... I've been around. I'm not ignorant to his past and the "concerns" that he brings.

But I also haven't seen a SINGLE stat that shows me that trading him away will absolutely make our team better, and that the players we draft with the picks we gather will, in ANY way, prove to be worth a crap.

(I'm not even going to bother discussing your RIDICULOUS bias comments on the list of 'bad' for him. Those just don't hold an ounce of legitimacy at all to anyone with any kind of rational thought, and only look like fact to some. Instigating gang members.. really? This is what you use as justification for your thought? You wonder why I'm not taking you seriously?

I'm more of the "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" type of guy. Especially whenthat bird in the hand, is probably amongst the top 3 in the NFL at his position.

Also.. I think you will get your way. As I've stated over and over again... I truly believe that McD is going to trade him away. You'll get your wish, and continue to believe that we are better by it.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 06:44 PM
:lol: Is that the reason????? :lol:

You are right. I've never seen a GM or a coach hire players that don't have the same 'values' that you do. Nor have I ever seen a team win a Super Bowl with players who's character (off the field) is questionable.

Yeah.. thats why I'm not an NFL coach.

It's not the values I hold, its obviously the "values" our head coach has, and the head coaches around the league who aren't bidding on Marshall. You just don't invest in a guy like this.

And when teams DO take a chance on guys with character concerns, they have already invested in positions that win football games, OL, DL. When the Patriots traded for RANDY MOSS, they has the pieces already in place. When NY took Plaxico, they HAD those pieces in place. They didn't start out by investing in a WR with character concerns. They took the chance because they had those pieces in place... And here are some past Superbowl winners.

2009, Saints...
2008 Steelers...
2007, Giants...
2006 Colts...
2005, Steelers...
2004 Pats...
2003, Pats...
2002, Bucs...
2001, Pats...
2000 Ravens...
1999 Rams....

Tell me Ravage. Aside from Plaxico Burress at WR for the Giants... Where are all the guys with character issues? Or how about, how many of these teams have invested in a skill player, on this list, who has had multiple character issues? Just don't see it guy. And neither does the rest of the NFL teams NOT bidding high on Marshall.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 06:51 PM
And just because someone might be ONE of your better players (if we are talking about the BEST player on the Broncos team, its Ryan Clady... There shouldn't be any debate about this. Just because Brandon Marshall catches a ball and makes the highlight reel, doesn't make him the best player. By position, Clady is far more valuable, as the LT position to the WR position) doesn't mean they aren't expendable.

Yes, I keep pointing out his past. Because you obviously AREN'T getting it.

Lets say you are Pat Bowlen. Its your money. Your going to take 60 million dollars and give it to a young guy like Marshall with all the problems he has had. Who is one act away from a lengthy suspension. 60 million dollar investment. And that investment has had all the problems in the world. But yet you still want to throw him money?

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 06:52 PM
It's not the values I hold, its obviously the "values" our head coach has, and the head coaches around the league who aren't bidding on Marshall. You just don't invest in a guy like this.

And when teams DO take a chance on guys with character concerns, they have already invested in positions that win football games, OL, DL. When the Patriots traded for RANDY MOSS, they has the pieces already in place. When NY took Plaxico, they HAD those pieces in place. They didn't start out by investing in a WR with character concerns. They took the chance because they had those pieces in place... And here are some past Superbowl winners.

2009, Saints...
2008 Steelers...
2007, Giants...
2006 Colts...
2005, Steelers...
2004 Pats...
2003, Pats...
2002, Bucs...
2001, Pats...
2000 Ravens...
1999 Rams....

Tell me Ravage. Aside from Plaxico Burress at WR for the Giants... Where are all the guys with character issues? Or how about, how many of these teams have invested in a skill player, on this list, who has had multiple character issues? Just don't see it guy. And neither does the rest of the NFL teams NOT bidding high on Marshall.

Uhmm... how about this. You name me a SINGLE team that has won a Super Bowl that does NOT have a player .. or playERS.. that doesn't have character issues or off-field problems, and I'll say you win.

Also... there hasn't been a SINGLE first-round tender RFA signed, at any position, in the ENTIRE NFL. So tell show me, how this is exclusive to Marshall and his character issues, and prove to me that any of this proves why the moral GMs and Coaches are bidding on Marshall. Unless you are going to tell me that all the 1st round tenders don't fit into the "coaches values." Btw... even Pac-man Jones is getting looks and interviews from those very "coaches" and "GMs" that have the Values you think are held to such high standards.

So all the teams NOT bidding on Marshall.. are the same teams NOT bidding on every 1st round tender in the entire league..... guy.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 07:00 PM
And just because someone might be ONE of your better players (if we are talking about the BEST player on the Broncos team, its Ryan Clady... There shouldn't be any debate about this. Just because Brandon Marshall catches a ball and makes the highlight reel, doesn't make him the best player. By position, Clady is far more valuable, as the LT position to the WR position) doesn't mean they aren't expendable.

Yes, I keep pointing out his past. Because you obviously AREN'T getting it.

Lets say you are Pat Bowlen. Its your money. Your going to take 60 million dollars and give it to a young guy like Marshall with all the problems he has had. Who is one act away from a lengthy suspension. 60 million dollar investment. And that investment has had all the problems in the world. But yet you still want to throw him money?

:lol: Yes.. I understand Ryan Clady's value. I also understand how our OL was considered to be one of the worst in the NFL last year. I also know very well that Marshall is more than a "might" be one of our better players :lol:

I also see that YOU don't get that I've read your concerns over and over and over again.. and not just from you. You have simply repeated what has been discussed on this board a THOUSAND times, and not ONE of your thoughts has been original, in the least. You have simply regurgitated the same things that so many posters have stated before.

Honestly.. its not hard to understand why you want to get rid of Marshall. Seriously. Its not exactly brain surgery here.... guy. You think you are some kind of genius with your unoriginal perspective?? Seriously? Its same old hash. Been there, done that.... got the t-shirt.

But yes... I think the team is better off with actual PROVEN players that have PROVED to be top 3 at their positions rather than trade them away for hopes (and thats what a draft pick is, a hope)....especially after our last draft that made me pretty concerned as to how well this coach drafts.

So before you go on and on and on about all the off-field stuff, and all the junk about Bowlen's money... and how the team could get an additional 2nd round pick for Marshall (and not much more, so don't act like we'll be getting Hershel Walker picks here), what do you suppose the odds of that player producing anywhere NEAR the level of play that Marshall has had, at their respective positions??? Honestly... anywhere near? Or are you just hoping that we MIGHt get a player that COULD someday start somewhere.. and maybe... down the road.. MIGHt prove to be a pro-bowl player?

Personally.. I'll take the chance on the proven commodity.

But hey. I'm sure Bowlen is glad that you are doing your best to look out for his money. But Bowlen is also smart enough to know that Star players... bring in the money. Marshall is a star player.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 07:01 PM
[QUOTE=Ravage!!!;939361]Uhmm... how about this. You name me a SINGLE team that has won a Super Bowl that does NOT have a player .. or playERS.. that doesn't have character issues or off-field problems, and I'll say you win.

Lol. I'm not trying to WIN. Or be VICTORIOUS. I don't seek fulfillment by winning an online debate over Brandon Marshall. My god. And of course teams have players with character concerns. But now your trying to twist the debate in a different direction. There are no large investments in players on ANY of those teams who have CHARACTER concerns. Nor is there a STAR player on ANY of those teams who regularly have run ins with the law and also hold a huge contract. You are saying we should pay Marshall. And that Superbowl teams have won with players like Marshall. That Marshall is TOO important to lose. My point. Superbowl teams haven't. We should trade Marshall. Just because he's great, doesn't make him valuable BECAUSE of his attitude and his past arrests. And it IS too risky. I'm done talking about this with you, because it obviously went in a direction i didn't want it to. Have your opinion, I'll have mine.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 07:09 PM
also.. one more th ing...

Larry Fitz signed a contract that gave him 15 million up front and paid him 2 million a year for the next 4 yrs...

So where do you guys get off thinking that a contract for Marshall will be anywhere near 60 million?

I would think a contract that is somewhere around the range of 12-15 up front and around 2 million a year..... just like Larry... is about right. THus paying him around 5 million a year against the cap (if it was 12 million signing bonus and a 4 year contract).... not counting roster bonuses and incentives.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 07:12 PM
[QUOTE=Ravage!!!;939361]Uhmm... how about this. You name me a SINGLE team that has won a Super Bowl that does NOT have a player .. or playERS.. that doesn't have character issues or off-field problems, and I'll say you win.

Lol. I'm not trying to WIN. Or be VICTORIOUS. I don't seek fulfillment by winning an online debate over Brandon Marshall. My god. And of course teams have players with character concerns. But now your trying to twist the debate in a different direction. There are no large investments in players on ANY of those teams who have CHARACTER concerns. Nor is there a STAR player on ANY of those teams who regularly have run ins with the law and also hold a huge contract. You are saying we should pay Marshall. And that Superbowl teams have won with players like Marshall. That Marshall is TOO important to lose. My point. Superbowl teams haven't. We should trade Marshall. Just because he's great, doesn't make him valuable BECAUSE of his attitude and his past arrests. And it IS too risky. I'm done talking about this with you, because it obviously went in a direction i didn't want it to. Have your opinion, I'll have mine.


no.. to YOU its too risky. Quit trying to push that your opinion is fact.. thats your problem. You have it in your head that you are SO right, there is no other way of looking at it.

Thats great that you find your opinion to be so superior, and is the fact of the situation. But if it was purely fact, than Marshall would already be gone and there woudlnt' be this "bluff" of keeping him if the offer from another team isn't right.

dogfish
04-02-2010, 07:15 PM
Tell me Ravage. Aside from Plaxico Burress at WR for the Giants... Where are all the guys with character issues? Or how about, how many of these teams have invested in a skill player, on this list, who has had multiple character issues? Just don't see it guy. And neither does the rest of the NFL teams NOT bidding high on Marshall.

are you serious?

plenty of low character athletes can be found in their respective sports' halls of fame. . . :lol:

the history of professional athletics is littered with people of low or questionable character, many of whom have reached the top of their sports. . . hell, ray lewis may well have murdered or been involved in murdering somebody. . . lawrence taylor was a coke fiend, brett favre was a painkiller-addicted drunk. . . oj ****ing simpson. . . tiger woods. . . kobe bryant, accused rapist and admitted adulterer. . . ben roethlisberger, now twice accused of sexual assault. . .

how about michael irvin? he's got three rings and the yellow blazer-- would you call him an admirable and upstanding citizen, aside from the coke, the hookers, the crack pipe the cops found in his car and the recent rape allegation?

hw many steroid users will be in the baseball HOF some day?

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 07:30 PM
[QUOTE=JONtheBRONCO;939365]


no.. to YOU its too risky. Quit trying to push that your opinion is fact.. thats your problem. You have it in your head that you are SO right, there is no other way of looking at it.

Thats great that you find your opinion to be so superior, and is the fact of the situation. But if it was purely fact, than Marshall would already be gone and there woudlnt' be this "bluff" of keeping him if the offer from another team isn't right.

Okay, so I lied. I'm back. And where did this assumption that I'm trying push my opinion to fact? I'm not dancing around in my head because I think I'm, "SO" right. What are you talking about, man? Stop stirring shit up. My opinion is we should trade Marshall and not take the risk in signing him long term. Your the one turning opinions into facts. The only thing thats FACT regarding Brandon Marshall, is that NO ONE is taking a risk on him, and sending a 1st round pick, BECAUSE OF HIS CHARACTER ISSUES!

And since when is my opinion superior because it happens to disagree with yours? Be a big boy, and handle a message board debate for crying out loud. Stop assuming my point is for no other reason than to show the world of Broncosforums how important and factual my opinion is. It's not. It's an opinion on what I think should happen. And when you respond with shit like, "No, other teams do," and "teams shouldn't get rid of talent," expect to hear a different side. Remember, i wrote my opinion down, you were the one who responded to it, claiming how RIDICULOUS, and IMMATURE, it was. When in reality, what really IS fact, are TWO things I've already stated.

1.) Brandon Marshall is very talented.
2.) Brandon Marshall has had multiple off-field issues. Multiple.

Both. Fact. But in MY opinion, one over-rides the other. Which I then compared to Marshalls current situation. Which is why NFL GM's and owners aren't throwing out a #1 pick for him....

It is MY opinion that the situation is TOO risky. And I told you why. Thats purely opinion, not because mine is better than anyones. If you think 60 million dollars isn't too much to invest in a player with a history of arrests, well then hey, thats your opinion. But stop throwing shit around just to make your argument or debate sound better, or make me out to look like something I'm not. I post on this board because I'm educated in football, understand the game, and have genuine interest in the Denver Broncos. I post my opinions because I'm sure they are similar to some of the others on here, and because I like to talk Broncos.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 07:34 PM
are you serious?

plenty of low character athletes can be found in their respective sports' halls of fame. . . :lol:

the history of professional athletics is littered with people of low or questionable character, many of whom have reached the top of their sports. . . hell, ray lewis may well have murdered or been involved in murdering somebody. . . lawrence taylor was a coke fiend, brett favre was a painkiller-addicted drunk. . . oj ****ing simpson. . . tiger woods. . . kobe bryant, accused rapist and admitted adulterer. . . ben roethlisberger, now twice accused of sexual assault. . .

how about michael irvin? he's got three rings and the yellow blazer-- would you call him an admirable and upstanding citizen, aside from the coke, the hookers, the crack pipe the cops found in his car and the recent rape allegation?

hw many steroid users will be in the baseball HOF some day?

Dude. This is insane. Since when are we talking about the ENTIRE world of sports. THis has been taken completely out of context. I was talking Superbowls. And big investment players who have been arrested multiple times, year. after. year. Brandon Marshall. Not every other ******* sports player who has ever done anything wrong. And Pitt will move away from Big Ben if shit hits the fan. I can promise you that.

Ravage!!!
04-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Noo.. once again. NO ONE is 'taking a risk' on Marshalll because not a single first round tender, at any position, has been signed in the NFL. NOT just Marshall. So quit trying to turn that into something that is PROVING the owners and GMs somehow now have "values" that don't match up with Brandon. Thats just incorrect. Thats a fictitious reality that you are putting out as a fact. NOT ONE HAS SIGNED IN THE NFL... THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER ISSUES (I can capitalize and shout too).

Also.. you actually proclaimed my response to be immature.. you wanted to claim that Marshall's presence didn't help the team. I simply pointed out that there were a lot of players on the team that didn't seem to change that record. If you are going to try and point out that the best player didn't seem to help, you might as well trade off the others as well.

Thirdly.. again. You continue to use the 60 million figure as if thats anywhere in the realm of reality. Its not. Fitz signed a 15 million signing bonus with 2 million a year contract.. thus paying him 17 million the first year, but counting 6 against the cap. Adding in incentives and roster bonuses, Larry could earn nearly 30 million over the 4 years. I don't think Marshall is going to get TWICE that of Fitz, but I would think that he would come close.

So if you give him a 12 million signing bonus, with 2 million a year... that would pay him 14 the first year, 5 against the cap.... add in roster bonuses (thus not paying him more per season, and keeping money in case of problems).. and incentives.. I'm pretty sure we could sign a VERY favorable contract for far less than 60 million.

Bt if you are going to ask if I think Marshall is worth the 12-15 signing bonues.... absolutely I do.

JONtheBRONCO
04-02-2010, 07:45 PM
Noo.. once again. NO ONE is 'taking a risk' on Marshalll because not a single first round tender, at any position, has been signed in the NFL. NOT just Marshall. So quit trying to turn that into something that is PROVING the owners and GMs somehow now have "values" that don't match up with Brandon. Thats just incorrect. Thats a fictitious reality that you are putting out as a fact. NOT ONE HAS SIGNED IN THE NFL... THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER ISSUES (I can capitalize and shout too).

Also.. you actually proclaimed my response to be immature.. you wanted to claim that Marshall's presence didn't help the team. I simply pointed out that there were a lot of players on the team that didn't seem to change that record. If you are going to try and point out that the best player didn't seem to help, you might as well trade off the others as well.

Thirdly.. again. You continue to use the 60 million figure as if thats anywhere in the realm of reality. Its not. Fitz signed a 15 million signing bonus with 2 million a year contract.. thus paying him 17 million the first year, but counting 6 against the cap. Adding in incentives and roster bonuses, Larry could earn nearly 30 million over the 4 years. I don't think Marshall is going to get TWICE that of Fitz, but I would think that he would come close.

So if you give him a 12 million signing bonus, with 2 million a year... that would pay him 14 the first year, 5 against the cap.... add in roster bonuses (thus not paying him more per season, and keeping money in case of problems).. and incentives.. I'm pretty sure we could sign a VERY favorable contract for far less than 60 million.

Bt if you are going to ask if I think Marshall is worth the 12-15 signing bonues.... absolutely I do.

And I do not. Difference of opinion, yes. Is either fact, no. And if you think I'd be unhappy with Marshall in Denver next year. I would not be.