PDA

View Full Version : Revisiting Brandon Marshall



topscribe
04-12-2010, 10:31 AM
.

So is Marshall, for all intents and purposes, gone from the squad? Don't be too
sure. My friend Ted Bartlett takes a different slant on it in his brand new
"SmarterFans.com," and it seems to make an awful lot of sense:



Revisiting Brandon Marshall


Submitted by Ted Bartlett on Wed, 04/07/2010 - 18:18

The Brandon Marshall situation in the NFL seems to have cooled down lately, but to Broncos fans and the beat reporters who “serve” them, it is a continual question. What’s going to happen with Brandon Marshall? Does it mean anything that he got married in Denver? Just check out this total anonymous stupidity from ESPN's Insider feed.

http://www.smarterfans.com/sites/default/files/Marshall.JPG

Just forget for a moment that the Redskins have no draft picks to offer, beyond the 4th overall. Forget that Mike Shanahan was going to send Marshall out of town after the 2008 season, if he didn't get fired first. Forget that Albert Haynesworth is out of favor in Washington, because he is a poor fit for a 30 front. Forget that the Broncos could have had Jason Campbell last season in a trade for Jay Cutler and pointedly preferred Kyle Orton to him, and traded with the Bears on that basis alone. (That's a lot of facts to forget, but work with me here.) Zero in on this one line: "Most people seem to be operating with the idea that Marshall has less value because it's thought Denver wants to get rid of him..." Now ESPN is citing ignorant media groupthink? That's who they have to mean by "most people", right? Isn't that the most idiotic thing you've ever read?

This whole thing is kind of funny to me, and not that complicated. Marshall is an asset to the Broncos, and either they’ll trade him for solid value, or they’ll keep him. As a Broncos fan, I am fine with either approach.

There’s this stupid assumption in the national media that Marshall has to be traded, and that the Broncos are desperate to move him. I’m here to tell you, that’s not correct. It’s as simple as this: there’s a certain level of financial exposure where the Broncos will almost certainly decide that the risk outweighs the benefit. At that level of exposure, they'll cut ties with Marshall. Until then, they have no need to do so.



What does the term “risk management” mean to you? If you were in a fraternity in college, it might mean no kegs at parties. If you work in finance or insurance, you realize it’s a math equation. If you are a sports reporter, you probably took the math class with the cartoon drawings in the books, and you don’t have any earthly idea about risk management. It's okay; the world needs people who are schooled in liberal arts too, and when the newspapers finally go under, you can be street poets or something.

Remember the part in Fight Club when Jack is telling the chick on the airplane that A equals the number of cars on the road, B equals the probability of a failure, and C equals the average cost of out-of-court settlement? A times B times C equals X, and if X is less than the cost of a recall, the company doesn’t do one. This is the essence of risk management, and by the way, the moron in your algebra class who told you that you’d never use this stuff had it dead wrong. (Take it from a guy who stupidly played poker in class every day of Algebra 2, while the 400 pound teacher breathed heavily at his desk.)

So, we’re doing some algebra here on SmarterFans.com. Brandon Marshall wants a big contract with lots of guaranteed money, and his play clearly warrants one. The deal you’re probably working with, as a starting point, is Roddy White’s, signed last August. It breaks out as follows:

http://www.smarterfans.com/sites/default/files/BM1_0.png

White’s deal also has $4 million of incentives, so it’s publicly understood as a 6 year, $48 million contract, for an average of $8 million per year. It’s a reasonable number for a player of White’s quality, and there’s no ridiculous balloon payment or minimum salary at the end, so I expect that this whole contract will get honored.

I figure that Marshall would pretty happily sign a deal that was 15% higher than White’s. Just running that math in Excel, and factoring in nothing but that arbitrary 15% number, I come up with this framework:

http://www.smarterfans.com/sites/default/files/BM2.png

That’s 6 years, $54.6 million, if you include the same $4 million in incentives. Marshall now makes an average of $9.1 million per year, which is probably even a little under market value for a player of his skills and production.

Now, back to risk management. With any football player, there are systemic risks (meaning risks that apply to all players evenly.) There’s a risk that he gets injured, that his skills diminish, that he gets paid and doesn’t try hard anymore, that he develops a drug problem, or that he catches aggressive AIDS from some groupie. With Marshall, there’s a bonus non-systemic risk that he gets suspended for a long period of time, since he’s already been in the NFL’s disciplinary doghouse.

What is the probability that money spent on Marshall is partly wasted? That’s what a smart risk manager has to ask. There are various way to model risk, but I’d do it something like this.

What do we know Marshall is capable of producing, in a statistical sense? I would say that the best way to know is to average his last 3 years’ performance, and work off of that. I’ve taken the liberty of doing so, and I’m setting his baseline performance at 102 catches, 1,236 yards, and 8 TDs.

http://www.smarterfans.com/sites/default/files/BM3.png

I cost that at $10 million per year worth of performance, and I want it for each of the next 6 years, since we pay for what you will do in the future, not what you have done in the past. That’ll be 612 receptions, 7,416 yards, and 48 TD receptions in 6 years, please. Now, what are the chances that this target is achieved? I figured it out, as best I could. I even put it in user-friendly chart form.

http://www.smarterfans.com/sites/default/files/BM4_0.png

I think the worst case scenario is that you get the equivalent of one fully-productive season out of Marshall, and that only a small chance of that exists. (Some of that risk is the same systemic injury risk shared by every football player.) The best case scenario is that he over-performs his previous production, and I think there’s a somewhat better chance of that, as the Broncos offense improves. In all, I think the various probabilities and dollar values price Marshall out to be worth $51.3 million over 6 years. Before, just working off of White’s contract, we called it $54 million, but remember, $4 million of that is incentives. We're right in the ballpark, based on my judgment of production risk, and I wasn't seeking any result as I calculated the model.

So, here’s where the Broncos sit right now. If somebody offers Marshall an offer sheet of more than $52 million or so for 6 years, they’d probably let him walk. The internal calculation probably comes back that he’s overpaid, given the identifiable systemic and non-systemic risks. They take the first round pick, and move on. If the offer comes in less than that, they match it, and they have a great player under an acceptable contract for 6 years.

A team signing Marshall to a long-term deal like this has the same risks the Broncos do. The problem is, they have a significantly higher cost to get him, because they have to give up a first round draft pick too. Marshall wants his $50ish million with $20ish million guaranteed, but a Seattle really has to discount his offer to make it worth their while. They’re foregoing a lot of production, presumably, for the 6th pick overall. In other words, the Broncos can pay him more than other teams, and have the same exposure.

There’s been a lot of speculation that the Broncos would take less than the 6th pick back for Marshall from Seattle. They almost certainly won’t, and they shouldn’t, and I’m about to explain why. They can’t take the 14th pick back for him, because it causes a serious optical problem. Essentially, they would have then traded Marshall straight-up for Alphonso Smith. As much as I like Smith, and think he’s going to have a big second year, that’s an untenable PR hit. They could take the 29th pick back from the Jets, and say they got value, but they can’t take the 14th, because of the unfortunate existence of the Woody Paiges of the world.


What the Broncos should do, and almost certainly will do, is just hold on to Brandon Marshall this season, for the virtually risk-free amount of $2.521 million. He’s still chasing a contract, and he still needs to behave and perform in order to get what he wants. The team also tendered guys like Kyle Orton, Elvis Dumervil, and Chris Kuper, and have told them all that they’re going to have to wait until the labor situation gets clarified, to talk about contract extensions. No RFA can blame a team for that state of affairs. They should blame their union for putting them in that situation. Marshall is being treated no differently than the other guys, media nonsense notwithstanding.

The Broncos aren’t actively trying to trade Brandon Marshall. They’re letting the restricted free agency process play out, just like every team is. The Texans re-upped DeMeco Ryans last week, but that’s the huge exception this offseason, rather than the rule. Marshall can’t reasonably claim that the team is doing him wrong, just like the team can’t be upset that he took the Seattle visit. They’re both just playing the game, and you’ll notice, both sides have said all the right things, and no bridges have really been burned.

Have you ever heard a person use the word invaluable? I hate that word, and wish it didn't exist. Everything and everybody can be valued, and if you can't value something, the problem is the valuer, rather than the valuable. Brandon Marshall is a player with a quantifiable net worth, just like any other player. The Broncos are going to be rational, and since they understand that worth better than anybody else, they’ll use it to maximize their own return on whatever happens. Don’t listen to the idiots who’ll have you believe that the Broncos somehow have to trade Marshall, or are somehow so dumb that they’ll take less than market value. He’ll almost certainly be playing for $2.5 million, and the Broncos will use the promise of a franchise tag as further negotiating leverage. The best thing Brandon can do is be quiet, play well, and stay out of trouble, and he’ll be rewarded. Like Brother Mouzone said, laying in a pool of his own blood, the game is the game.
Don't forget to check in with Ted once in a while. Some good stuff over there:
http://www.smarterfans.com/content/stories/3/revisiting-brandon-marshall

-----

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 10:39 AM
well.. the Steelers just got rid of a quality #1 for a 5th round pick because they wanted to make a point. None of this writer's equations take into account the fact that the coach doesn't want Marshall on the team, and Marshall doesn't want to be on this team. Those two personalities clash, and I honestly do NOT believe that its a clash that will be repaired.

This is based entirely on cost. I think its more than the money that is the reason Marshall leaves Denver.

Lancane
04-12-2010, 10:56 AM
well.. the Steelers just got rid of a quality #1 for a 5th round pick because they wanted to make a point. None of this writer's equations take into account the fact that the coach doesn't want Marshall on the team, and Marshall doesn't want to be on this team. Those two personalities clash, and I honestly do NOT believe that its a clash that will be repaired.

This is based entirely on cost. I think its more than the money that is the reason Marshall leaves Denver.

Don't count on it Rav, Holmes was traded for more then a fifth round pick, but besides that...we have to remember that this draft class is weak, there are a lot of project wideouts and if there were a load of potential number one receivers then there would be more with first round grades, so far the only two have such in Bryant and Tate and both are sliding because Bryant and because it's a weak class.

The object of the league is to win, whether they agree or get along or not...McDaniels could be forced into keeping Marshall so he has a chance to win. If McDaniels does not win well a lockout would be the perfect time to get a new head coach for any team. I'm sure McDaniels wants to keep his job...sometimes you have to swallow shit to keep the bills paid.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 11:02 AM
well.. the Steelers just got rid of a quality #1 for a 5th round pick because they wanted to make a point. None of this writer's equations take into account the fact that the coach doesn't want Marshall on the team, and Marshall doesn't want to be on this team. Those two personalities clash, and I honestly do NOT believe that its a clash that will be repaired.

This is based entirely on cost. I think its more than the money that is the reason Marshall leaves Denver.

There's nothing that shows that those 2 don't get along. Anything I saw all of last season was those 2 getting along outside of the final week where none of us really know what happened. Marshall has said more than once that he'd stay in Denver and McDaniels has said that they aren't shopping Marshall in a trade. I think the Holmes trade actually makes it more likely that Marshall stays in Denver because we're not going to give up Marshall for nothing. A team is going to have to pony up to get him IMO and after the Holmes trade, I don't think that's going to happen.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 11:05 AM
Don't count on it Rav, Holmes was traded for more then a fifth round pick, but besides that...we have to remember that this draft class is weak, there are a lot of project wideouts and if there were a load of potential number one receivers then there would be more with first round grades, so far the only two have such in Bryant and Tate and both are sliding because Bryant and because it's a weak class.

The object of the league is to win, whether they agree or get along or not...McDaniels could be forced into keeping Marshall so he has a chance to win. If McDaniels does not win well a lockout would be the perfect time to get a new head coach for any team. I'm sure McDaniels wants to keep his job...sometimes you have to swallow shit to keep the bills paid.

No he wasn't... He was traded for just a 5th round pick. This draft class is stocked with talent. Maybe not at WR, but at almost every other position. It's one of the deepest drafts in a while. I agree that the point is to win in this league. Last year Marshall and McDaniels had a few great moments with McD congratulating BM and hugging him and what not. With the exception of week 17 it seemed their situation was just fine and we still don't know what happened during week 17 so we have no idea if it's irreconcilable or not.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Don't count on it Rav, Holmes was traded for more then a fifth round pick, but besides that...we have to remember that this draft class is weak, there are a lot of project wideouts and if there were a load of potential number one receivers then there would be more with first round grades, so far the only two have such in Bryant and Tate and both are sliding because Bryant and because it's a weak class.

The object of the league is to win, whether they agree or get along or not...McDaniels could be forced into keeping Marshall so he has a chance to win. If McDaniels does not win well a lockout would be the perfect time to get a new head coach for any team. I'm sure McDaniels wants to keep his job...sometimes you have to swallow shit to keep the bills paid.


Uhhuh... and when I see the first sign of McD willing to 'swallow shit' then I'll buy into that.

Hey.. I'm not saying that I can't be wrong on this, I'm just feeling its a done deal. I think the feelings and stirrings around the NFL have just been too strong. I think thats because there is more 'rumblings' behind the scenes than what can be publicly stated.

I'm not going to be 'knocked to the floor' if Marshall signs with Denver, but I would be pretty surprised.

**Where have you heard its for more than a 5th?

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 11:08 AM
No he wasn't... He was traded for just a 5th round pick. This draft class is stocked with talent. Maybe not at WR, but at almost every other position. It's one of the deepest drafts in a while. I agree that the point is to win in this league. Last year Marshall and McDaniels had a few great moments with McD congratulating BM and hugging him and what not. With the exception of week 17 it seemed their situation was just fine and we still don't know what happened during week 17 so we have no idea if it's irreconcilable or not.

I think the hugging and the chest bumps... was pure 'fronting' by Marshall. So I don't think this was just a one-week turmoil that went wrong.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 11:11 AM
I think the hugging and the chest bumps... was pure 'fronting' by Marshall. So I don't think this was just a one-week turmoil that went wrong.

Well we're all entitled to our opinions. I think it was pure emotion and elation. I think he honestly likes Coach McDaniels and is just unhappy that we're not paying him the money he thinks he deserves. Winning and $$$ cure all in the NFL.

Lancane
04-12-2010, 11:12 AM
No he wasn't... He was traded for just a 5th round pick. This draft class is stocked with talent. Maybe not at WR, but at almost every other position. It's one of the deepest drafts in a while. I agree that the point is to win in this league. Last year Marshall and McDaniels had a few great moments with McD congratulating BM and hugging him and what not. With the exception of week 17 it seemed their situation was just fine and we still don't know what happened during week 17 so we have no idea if it's irreconcilable or not.

He was traded for more then a fifth round pick in that the Steelers wanted to seperate themselves from the headache!

I guess I should have specified what I meant...I'm pretty sure they were hoping for more value for Holmes, the fact they took so little for him says a lot. Like they just wanted him gone...

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 11:17 AM
He was traded for more then a fifth round pick in that the Steelers wanted to seperate themselves from the headache!

I guess I should have specified what I meant...I'm pretty sure they were hoping for more value for Holmes, the fact they took so little for him says a lot. Like they just wanted him gone...

I see what you're saying. Yeah they clearly did. I saw on twitter that the trade materialized in less than 24 hours which is very quick. They clearly wanted to get rid of Holmes and were desperate to. I also read that they were going to cut him and a 5th rounder was the best they could do.

We're not in the same situation with Brandon. If we were desperate to get rid of him, he'd be gone already. That's why I don't think he's going anywhere unless a 1st is offered up, and after this trade of Holmes I think that just became very unlikely.

NightTrainLayne
04-12-2010, 11:28 AM
Why would we want Jason Campbell? We're not exactly "loaded" at QB, but I fail to see how Campbell brings enough value to the trade to make it worthwhile for us.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 11:29 AM
I think its obvious that the Steelers found it to be necessary to deal him as soon as they found out he was going to get the 4 game suspension. I don't understand the 'rush' that they had. Doesn't make any sense. They could have gotten more for him. But when you try to put that kind of rush on getting rid of a player... the value plummets.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 11:39 AM
Why would we want Jason Campbell? We're not exactly "loaded" at QB, but I fail to see how Campbell brings enough value to the trade to make it worthwhile for us.

Yeah.. I forgot to mention this from the article. I didn't really understand why the writer brought this up? I mean, why would we be interested in Campbell whatsoever?

After reading that early(and even after him acknowledging that we could have 'traded for Campbell last year') I didn't think the writer was truly looking at the picture here in Denver.

topscribe
04-12-2010, 11:39 AM
Why would we want Jason Campbell? We're not exactly "loaded" at QB, but I fail to see how Campbell brings enough value to the trade to make it worthwhile for us.

That is what the author seems to be saying. Remember, he called what was
written in the box as "stupidity."

There is nothing Washington has that Denver wants, except maybe their first-
round draft choice that Washington is sure not to give up . . . and maybe not even
that, considering what they would have to pay the player they selected with it . . .

-----

NightTrainLayne
04-12-2010, 11:48 AM
That is what the author seems to be saying. Remember, he called what was
written in the box as "stupidity."

There is nothing Washington has that Denver wants, except maybe their first-
round draft choice that Washington is sure not to give up . . . and maybe not even
that, considering what they would have to pay the player they selected with it . . .

-----

That explains it. . .I read that and thought, "how stupid" and quit reading. :D

topscribe
04-12-2010, 11:53 AM
That explains it. . .I read that and thought, "how stupid" and quit reading. :D
Well, now you can go back and finish it. ;)

-----

Lonestar
04-12-2010, 12:28 PM
To some teams value is more than talent they place character on a higher plane.

Guess we will see which Pat and Josh value the most very soon.

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Denver Native (Carol)
04-12-2010, 12:37 PM
http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/04/12/seahawks-could-still-make-deal-for-marshall/

We’ve seen a flurry of big trades in the past week or so, and there is still at least one more blockbuster possible. The Broncos are still looking to deal WR Brandon Marshall by the draft, with the Seahawks continuing to show the most interest, according to league sources.

The Seahawks are the only team to bring in Marshall for a visit, and talks between them and the Broncos are expected to heat up this week. Marshall has yet to sign his restricted free agent tender with Denver.

The Broncos have been seeking a first-round pick for Marshall and Seattle has two, but signing him to an offer sheet would require parting with the sixth-overall pick, which the Seahawks are unwilling to do, according to sources. It has been very difficult to get a first-round pick in trades, with Donovan McNabb going for a second-round pick in 2010 and a third or fourth pick in 2011.

A deal could be worked out for less than a first-round pick, with Marshall signing his tender and then getting a new contract from his next team. Seattle has been the most proactive team in this regard, according to sources.

Traveler
04-12-2010, 01:43 PM
Brandon Marshall-WR-Broncos Apr. 12 - 12:54 pm et

The Seahawks are still the team showing the most interest in restricted free agent Brandon Marshall.

According to NFL.com's Jason La Canfora "talks are expected to heat up...this week" between the Seahawks and Broncos. Denver may ultimately be forced to settle with the Seahawks' second-round draft choice (No. 60 overall). Pete Carroll's team is not willing to part with either if its first-rounders.

Source: NFL.com

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

Hold fast Josh! A number one or no Marshall trade. Gotta get value for him in trade.

dogfish
04-12-2010, 02:06 PM
Uhhuh... and when I see the first sign of McD willing to 'swallow shit' then I'll buy into that.

Hey.. I'm not saying that I can't be wrong on this, I'm just feeling its a done deal. I think the feelings and stirrings around the NFL have just been too strong. I think thats because there is more 'rumblings' behind the scenes than what can be publicly stated.

I'm not going to be 'knocked to the floor' if Marshall signs with Denver, but I would be pretty surprised.



FWIW, jeff legwold agrees with you. . .


Consensus is Broncos will trade Marshall
Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/12/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

I polled a handful of personnel executives throughout the NFL over the weekend and asked them if they still believed the Broncos would trade wide receiver Brandon Marshall before the April 22-24 draft or at least before the Broncos made a pick.

The consensus was yes, the Broncos would trade Marshall, and that no, they would not get a first-round pick for him when all was said and done.

At the root of that thought is they simply don't see how Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and Marshall can constructively coexist in the 2010 season no matter what the two have said in recent weeks.

Many general managers have said from the start they wouldn't give the Broncos a first-round pick for Marshall in large part because they didn't truly believe the Broncos would keep him.

All of the personnel executives still believe the Seattle Seahawks will be Marshall's next stop, but they weren't discounting the Washington Redskins if the Broncos are willing to deal with their former coach, Mike Shanahan.

Jeff Legwold: 303-954-2359 or jlegwold@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14865649
_______________________

i don't think there's really any way to accurately predict what's going to happen. . . from appearances, it would seem that JMFMCD is going to have to decide whether he's willing to give marshall away on the cheap. . .

intellectually, i'm sickened by the idea of letting some other team dictate terms to steal one of our best talents. . .

emotionally, i'm so ****ing nauseated by this damn topic that i hope we move him for whatever, just so i never have to hear about it again. . . .


THANK GOD the draft is coming and our long national nightmare is finally nearing completion. . . .

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 02:10 PM
i don't think there's really any way to accurately predict what's going to happen. . . from appearances, it would seem that JMFMCD is going to have to decide whether he's willing to give marshall away on the cheap. . .

intellectually, i'm sickened by the idea of letting some other team dictate terms to steal one of our best talents. . .

emotionally, i'm so ****ing nauseated by this damn topic that i hope we move him for whatever, just so i never have to hear about it again. . . .


THANK GOD the draft is coming and our long national nightmare is finally nearing completion. . . .


Problem is, my friend.... that when Denver trades him away.... you will absolutely hear a LOT about it again, and again, and again......

Denver Native (Carol)
04-12-2010, 02:11 PM
FWIW, jeff legwold agrees with you. . .


Consensus is Broncos will trade Marshall
Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/12/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

I polled a handful of personnel executives throughout the NFL over the weekend and asked them if they still believed the Broncos would trade wide receiver Brandon Marshall before the April 22-24 draft or at least before the Broncos made a pick.

The consensus was yes, the Broncos would trade Marshall, and that no, they would not get a first-round pick for him when all was said and done.

At the root of that thought is they simply don't see how Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and Marshall can constructively coexist in the 2010 season no matter what the two have said in recent weeks.

Many general managers have said from the start they wouldn't give the Broncos a first-round pick for Marshall in large part because they didn't truly believe the Broncos would keep him.

All of the personnel executives still believe the Seattle Seahawks will be Marshall's next stop, but they weren't discounting the Washington Redskins if the Broncos are willing to deal with their former coach, Mike Shanahan.

Jeff Legwold: 303-954-2359 or jlegwold@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14865649
_______________________

i don't think there's really any way to accurately predict what's going to happen. . . from appearances, it would seem that JMFMCD is going to have to decide whether he's willing to give marshall away on the cheap. . .

intellectually, i'm sickened by the idea of letting some other team dictate terms to steal one of our best talents. . .

emotionally, i'm so ****ing nauseated by this damn topic that i hope we move him for whatever, just so i never have to hear about it again. . . .


THANK GOD the draft is coming and our long national nightmare is finally nearing completion. . . .

I think we both know that if the Broncos do move him, we will be hearing about that for years to come on here.

slim
04-12-2010, 02:11 PM
FWIW, jeff legwold agrees with you. . .


Consensus is Broncos will trade Marshall
Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/12/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

I polled a handful of personnel executives throughout the NFL over the weekend and asked them if they still believed the Broncos would trade wide receiver Brandon Marshall before the April 22-24 draft or at least before the Broncos made a pick.

The consensus was yes, the Broncos would trade Marshall, and that no, they would not get a first-round pick for him when all was said and done.

At the root of that thought is they simply don't see how Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and Marshall can constructively coexist in the 2010 season no matter what the two have said in recent weeks.

Many general managers have said from the start they wouldn't give the Broncos a first-round pick for Marshall in large part because they didn't truly believe the Broncos would keep him.

All of the personnel executives still believe the Seattle Seahawks will be Marshall's next stop, but they weren't discounting the Washington Redskins if the Broncos are willing to deal with their former coach, Mike Shanahan.

Jeff Legwold: 303-954-2359 or jlegwold@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14865649
_______________________

i don't think there's really any way to accurately predict what's going to happen. . . from appearances, it would seem that JMFMCD is going to have to decide whether he's willing to give marshall away on the cheap. . .

intellectually, i'm sickened by the idea of letting some other team dictate terms to steal one of our best talents. . .

emotionally, i'm so ****ing nauseated by this damn topic that i hope we move him for whatever, just so i never have to hear about it again. . . .


THANK GOD the draft is coming and our long national nightmare is finally nearing completion. . . .

Yeah, I'm sure no one here would ever mention it again.

:jaycutler:

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 02:12 PM
Problem is, my friend.... that when Denver trades him away.... you will absolutely hear a LOT about it again, and again, and again......


I think we both know that if the Broncos do move him, we will be hearing about that for years to come on here.


Yeah, I'm sure no one here would ever mention it again.

:jaycutler:

:lol: I think we all jumped on that one!! :laugh:

dogfish
04-12-2010, 02:24 PM
Problem is, my friend.... that when Denver trades him away.... you will absolutely hear a LOT about it again, and again, and again......

see, i don't care about that though. . .

i know there will be a few bitter holdovers who'll never let it go-- but i don't care. . . .the broncos will move on without him, and most people will find other things to bitch about by the time the season starts. . .

people still complain about cutler-- hell, we have one guy who'll still take the barest slip of an excuse to complain about friggin' shanahan!-- but it's localized and easy to ignore. . . it's not like it makes up 65% of the readable threads here anymore. . . .

and it's different from the cutler saga. . . a large portion of our fanbase is ready for marshall to be gone, like it or not-- the only people who wanted cutler gone were RC, WTM, JR and a couple other bitter plummer holdovers. . .

T.K.O.
04-12-2010, 02:38 PM
like it or not-- the only people who wanted cutler gone were RC, WTM, JR and a couple other bitter plummer holdovers. . .

......and cutler;)

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 02:39 PM
I think if Marshall is dealt and a sold WR is drafted...the offense could improve. it would be nice to see the ball spread around a bit.

Ziggy
04-12-2010, 02:55 PM
I think if Marshall is dealt and a sold WR is drafted...the offense could improve. it would be nice to see the ball spread around a bit.

Are you trying to say that it would be addition by subtraction Coach? Lose a pro bowl receiver and have a better offense because of it? Are you crazy? Do you understand football at all? You can't lose talent and get better. What's wrong with you?










































By the way.......I agree completely Coach. This should get ugly real quick.

TXBRONC
04-12-2010, 03:00 PM
Are you trying to say that it would be addition by subtraction Coach? Lose a pro bowl receiver and have a better offense because of it? Are you crazy? Do you understand football at all? You can't lose talent and get better. What's wrong with you?










































By the way.......I agree completely Coach. This should get ugly real quick.

I didn't read what Chaz said as addition by subtraction. He did mention drafting another wide receiver.

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 03:05 PM
I didn't read what Chaz said as addition by subtraction. He did mention drafting another wide receiver.

I mentioned a solid receiver being drafted. By that, I mean a solid player that we could find in round 2, 3 or 4. i dont think it HAS to be something with the #11 pick

WARHORSE
04-12-2010, 03:26 PM
Brandon Marshall-WR-Broncos Apr. 12 - 12:54 pm et

The Seahawks are still the team showing the most interest in restricted free agent Brandon Marshall.

According to NFL.com's Jason La Canfora "talks are expected to heat up...this week" between the Seahawks and Broncos. Denver may ultimately be forced to settle with the Seahawks' second-round draft choice (No. 60 overall). Pete Carroll's team is not willing to part with either if its first-rounders.

Source: NFL.com

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

Hold fast Josh! A number one or no Marshall trade. Gotta get value for him in trade.


Only way Id settle for less than their 14th, is if they gave up their second and their first next year. Maybe even their third this year and their first next year.

I'll take that and enter the Jake Locker sweepstakes.


Honestly, I dont see Seattle getting a whole lot better with Carroll running the show. He never did impress me as an NFL caliber coach.


Change of schemes will be part of it, but mostly I just dont think hes an NFL gameday strategist. His schematics dont impress me one bit....kinda like Steve Spurrier.

underrated29
04-12-2010, 03:32 PM
I mentioned a solid receiver being drafted. By that, I mean a solid player that we could find in round 2, 3 or 4. i dont think it HAS to be something with the #11 pick


But I think it might be.
I still think Dez will be better than brandon once all said and done. If we are going to get a good replacement, lets get one of the best. Unless someone falls, i just cant see how any other player will bring more of an overall (positive) impact to our team than he.

(it looks like we want dez or benn or jmfmcd could pull a shanny and use it as a smoke screen to throw us ALL in a loop.)

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 03:36 PM
Only way Id settle for less than their 14th, is if they gave up their second and their first next year. Maybe even their third this year and their first next year.

I'll take that and enter the Jake Locker sweepstakes.


Honestly, I dont see Seattle getting a whole lot better with Carroll running the show. He never did impress me as an NFL caliber coach.


Change of schemes will be part of it, but mostly I just dont think hes an NFL gameday strategist. His schematics dont impress me one bit....kinda like Steve Spurrier.

Jerrod Johnson

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 03:52 PM
But I think it might be.
I still think Dez will be better than brandon once all said and done. If we are going to get a good replacement, lets get one of the best. Unless someone falls, i just cant see how any other player will bring more of an overall (positive) impact to our team than he.

(it looks like we want dez or benn or jmfmcd could pull a shanny and use it as a smoke screen to throw us ALL in a loop.)

You think Dez Bryant will be a better NFL WR than Brandon Marshall? Wow. Bold call right there. I think Marshall is only the 5th or 6th player in NFL HISTORY to have 3 straight 100 catch seasons. I like Dez, and if we're going to get rid of Brandon I'd take him, but damn. Better than Brandon Marshall is going out on a limb. Does that mean you think Dez Bryant is the next Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson? Those are the only 2 I think you can even make an argument for against Brandon Marshall as best WR in the league, IMHO.

Northman
04-12-2010, 04:16 PM
But I think it might be.
I still think Dez will be better than brandon once all said and done. If we are going to get a good replacement, lets get one of the best. Unless someone falls, i just cant see how any other player will bring more of an overall (positive) impact to our team than he.

(it looks like we want dez or benn or jmfmcd could pull a shanny and use it as a smoke screen to throw us ALL in a loop.)


Interesting thought. With really no interest in Marshall at this point Denver just might consider going with Bryant unless they plan on franchising Marshall next year but why deal with the headache? If they cant unload Marshall than i could see them taking Bryant. Im not sure Bryant will be the answer and he comes with some baggage of his own but as you said, why wait in the later rounds when the #1 rated WR is there.

turftoad
04-12-2010, 04:18 PM
Interesting thought. With really no interest in Marshall at this point Denver just might consider going with Bryant unless they plan on franchising Marshall next year but why deal with the headache? If they cant unload Marshall than i could see them taking Bryant. Im not sure Bryant will be the answer and he comes with some baggage of his own but as you said, why wait in the later rounds when the #1 rated WR is there.

Charles Rogers was the #1 rated WR when he came out too. Just sayin.

Northman
04-12-2010, 04:20 PM
Charles Rogers was the #1 rated WR when he came out too. Just sayin.

Oh i agree. But if Brandon walks next year than might as well go with the guy who is slated to be the best in the draft. But your correct, everything is a crap shoot come draft time.

underrated29
04-12-2010, 04:23 PM
You think Dez Bryant will be a better NFL WR than Brandon Marshall? Wow. Bold call right there. I think Marshall is only the 5th or 6th player in NFL HISTORY to have 3 straight 100 catch seasons. I like Dez, and if we're going to get rid of Brandon I'd take him, but damn. Better than Brandon Marshall is going out on a limb. Does that mean you think Dez Bryant is the next Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson? Those are the only 2 I think you can even make an argument for against Brandon Marshall as best WR in the league, IMHO.




Funny you say that... I have taken it up the butt for saying this before..And I have not even seen that much film of Dez, save for his few highlights. This might be a rehash for some and I might come off sounding as a brandon hater. Keep in mind I am not, but this is why I think the way I do. Could be way off but nonetheless.........


First off I will start with marshall...Brandon has catches. but so what...I mean, we target the dude like 60% of the time, he should have those catches. Not to discredit those #s, mind you but catches mean jack in my book. A game breaker takes over games, like brandon does. BUT.....To me Brandon only really is ELITE in YAC/RAC...No one in the league runs harder, or is harder to bring down when he has the ball in his hands. NO ONE. But the rest I say he is just above average. Does not always go up and snag the ball, plays no where near his potential, drops the occasional easy one and despite his good speed not an ELITE deep threat. He has mental breakdowns and IMO stuggles to get off the ball. Brandon to me is a player that wont reach his potential ever. To his name he has catches and yards...A possession WR who can run like a damn bull but thats about it. So over the course of his career, I do not see him with guady numbers of the elite.


Dez- I actually do compare him to AJ. Not completely, but I see the similiar skill set. What he does, which I have not seen many WR in the NFL do is go up, up, up and get the ball. Just like Fitz!! Very few WR do this, and the TRUE great ones do. Brandon could do this and sometimes he does, but Dez does it ALL the time it seems. That means he does not have to have separation to make the catch. But he does get off the ball better, (albeait its college dbs and not pros)....Jay cutler would love this guy as even if there are 4 guys covering him just toss it up and he will fly up and get it. That part is ELITE. Then his speed, I would say he seems to run about the same 40 as marshall, I am not sure...And maybe its his acceleration thats better, but Dez seems to be more fluid in his speed, not quite such a long strider, but still able to get over the top of the DBs. He also seems to really excell at locating the ball in mid air, either over the shoulder, breadbasket drop, quick turn around, whatever.... I see these skills in dez, being more prevelant or more used than in marshall. So for that reason i think Dez will be the better player.

He is an offensive game changer. Brandon is also when he can YAC, if he cant YAC, he is not that effective for us. Thats also why we use him so much in space, because thats where his ELITE skills lye.

Keep in mind just my opinion, and I could be waaaaaay off, and I am not a hater for brandon. I just see the qualities that the great ones have and I see it more prevelent or used more in dez than brandon. So I think Dez will have the better career.

dogfish
04-12-2010, 04:47 PM
Interesting thought. With really no interest in Marshall at this point Denver just might consider going with Bryant unless they plan on franchising Marshall next year but why deal with the headache? If they cant unload Marshall than i could see them taking Bryant. Im not sure Bryant will be the answer and he comes with some baggage of his own but as you said, why wait in the later rounds when the #1 rated WR is there.

OTOH, do you want to replace a head case with another guy that a lot of people think is going to be a head case?

seems like a bit of a bad risk to me. . . if we're willing to deal with bad character, shouldn't we just keep the bad character guy who we KNOW can dominate on the field?

i know, i know. . . dez has never been arrested, and it's probably not entirely fair to suggest that he could have serious behavior problems at the next level. . . but ya know what? tough shit. . . i'm so over the marshall headache, why even take a chance? all the ability in the world isn't worth it if the guy is another discipline problem who we end up wanting to be rid of in a few years. . .

just another reason golden tate is my favorite receiver in this draft-- he's as fierce a competitor as probably any player in this class regardless of position, but he shows no other signs of the ****ed up diva attitude that has become the norm for receivers. . . as a bonus, he should be available later than dez-- IF we could find a trade partner, we could move back from #11 and probably still get him. . . if we absolutely have to have a big receiver to replace marshall, IMO either arrelious been or demaryius thomas should be available late 1st- early 3nd, and i haven't read or heard anything indicating either one has the character concerns that dez brings. . .

JMO. . .

dogfish
04-12-2010, 04:48 PM
Funny you say that... I have taken it up the butt for saying this before..

that would stop most guys from saying it again. . . . :shocked:

underrated29
04-12-2010, 04:53 PM
that would stop most guys from saying it again. . . . :shocked:



LMAO!!!:lol:



TOUCHE!

Northman
04-12-2010, 04:57 PM
OTOH, do you want to replace a head case with another guy that a lot of people think is going to be a head case?

Not really, but does Bryant have the same laundry list?


seems like a bit of a bad risk to me. . . if we're willing to deal with bad character, shouldn't we just keep the bad character guy who we KNOW can dominate on the field?

Could be a risk, or he could turn out to be 10 times the player that Brandon is both on and off the field. Could be a more mature on the field, etc.


i know, i know. . . dez has never been arrested, and it's probably not entirely fair to suggest that he could have serious behavior problems at the next level. . . but ya know what? tough shit. . . i'm so over the marshall headache, why even take a chance? all the ability in the world isn't worth it if the guy is another discipline problem who we end up wanting to be rid of in a few years. . .

Your preaching to the choir dude. Bryant wouldnt even be my selection if i were the one drafting. Im just throwing it out there that if Marshall is going to walk next year we might want to CONSIDER taking Bryant. Nothing more, nothing less.


ust another reason golden tate is my favorite receiver in this draft-- he's as fierce a competitor as probably any player in this class regardless of position, but he shows no other signs of the ****ed up diva attitude that has become the norm for receivers. . . as a bonus, he should be available later than dez-- IF we could find a trade partner, we could move back from #11 and probably still get him. . . if we absolutely have to have a big receiver to replace marshall, IMO either arrelious been or demaryius thomas should be available late 1st- early 3nd, and i haven't read or heard anything indicating either one has the character concerns that dez brings. . .

JMO. . .

Cant argue that as my latest mock had us taking Gilyard in the second who brings a down field threat along with ST duties. :beer:

dogfish
04-12-2010, 05:10 PM
Not really, but does Bryant have the same laundry list?



Could be a risk, or he could turn out to be 10 times the player that Brandon is both on and off the field. Could be a more mature on the field, etc.



Your preaching to the choir dude. Bryant wouldnt even be my selection if i were the one drafting. Im just throwing it out there that if Marshall is going to walk next year we might want to CONSIDER taking Bryant. Nothing more, nothing less.



Cant argue that as my latest mock had us taking Gilyard in the second who brings a down field threat along with ST duties. :beer:

i know what you're saying, and i certainly understand it. . . it DOES make sense to consider him, no question. . .

i've gone back and forth on it myself. . . but weariness of the whole marshall situation has turned the tide for me. . . i know dez hasn't been in any legal trouble, and i know that guys who don't have red flags can still step in it later. . .

i know risk can never be eliminated-- i'm just at the point where i'd like to see minimizing it as best as we can being a high priority for us this time, and i'd be more comfortable with a prospect who isn't flying those particular red flags-- gimme brandon graham or dan williams, or even mcclain or haden over bryant. . .

Northman
04-12-2010, 05:13 PM
i know what you're saying, and i certainly understand it. . . it DOES make sense to consider him, no question. . .

i've gone back and forth on it myself. . . but weariness of the whole marshall situation has turned the tide for me. . . i know dez hasn't been in any legal trouble, and i know that guys who don't have red flags can still step in it later. . .

i know risk can never be eliminated-- i'm just at the point where i'd like to see minimizing it as best as we can being a high priority for us this time, and i'd be more comfortable with a prospect who isn't flying those particular red flags-- gimme brandon graham or dan williams, or even mcclain or haden over bryant. . .

That you and me agree on.

Ziggy
04-12-2010, 05:34 PM
I don't think that trading Marshall means that we spend a high pick on a WR. Build the defense, and offensive line, and the team becomes better in the long run. I keep seeing that drafting Dez becomes more possible if we trade Marshall. I just don't see it that way. The idea is to rebuild this team to win for the long run. Offensive and defensive lineman make more of a difference than wide receivers.

Northman
04-12-2010, 05:37 PM
I don't think that trading Marshall means that we spend a high pick on a WR. Build the defense, and offensive line, and the team becomes better in the long run. I keep seeing that drafting Dez becomes more possible if we trade Marshall. I just don't see it that way. The idea is to rebuild this team to win for the long run. Offensive and defensive lineman make more of a difference than wide receivers.

Maybe, maybe not. But thus far McD has done things differently than Billy did in NE when it comes to the draft so dont be surprised if we do take one high. With McD anything is possible.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 05:41 PM
I don't think that trading Marshall means that we spend a high pick on a WR. Build the defense, and offensive line, and the team becomes better in the long run. I keep seeing that drafting Dez becomes more possible if we trade Marshall. I just don't see it that way. The idea is to rebuild this team to win for the long run. Offensive and defensive lineman make more of a difference than wide receivers.

True, but it's easier to find good lineman in the later rounds than it is good skill position players. I think that's why people are thinking Dez. Plus you know most people as fans always want the flashy player. The guy who makes people say "oooh" and "ahhh" not the road grading OG or run stuffing nose tackle. I'm not saying ALL fans are like that, but most I seem to run into outside the boards and even a lot on the boards never want to draft an Olineman. I personally am fine with drafting any position that makes our team better, but I definitely see where some of those people are coming from. It's hard when your friends are going "dude we got Desean Jackson" or "man we got Darren McFadden" and they're sitting there going "Oh yeah. We got Ryan Clady." and they say "who?" and you say "You know that left tackle from Boise State" So I get why people want to draft the flashy skill position player, but just like you I'm all for drafting the position we need an upgrade in most and that makes our team better the quickest.

Lonestar
04-12-2010, 05:54 PM
I agree with Ziggy secure the LOS and the sexy picks can come in the later picks.

The NE model clearly shows that Bill has drafted LOS players in round 1 almost every year except when they took mulroney.

But at that time they had the horses on the LOS.

Josh had his ONE deviation from that strategy last year. Thinking he had the OLINE to open holes for him.

It will be back to basics OLINE DLINE and maybe a blocking TE. On days one and TWO.
The sex begins on day 3.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

dogfish
04-12-2010, 07:02 PM
I don't think that trading Marshall means that we spend a high pick on a WR. Build the defense, and offensive line, and the team becomes better in the long run. I keep seeing that drafting Dez becomes more possible if we trade Marshall. I just don't see it that way. The idea is to rebuild this team to win for the long run. Offensive and defensive lineman make more of a difference than wide receivers.

let me play devil's advocate here. . .

i myself tend to be fine with the run-first, grind it out team model, BUT. . . mcD is a spread offense guy, and you need receivers to run the spread effectively. . . it can certainly be argued that you don't need GREAT receivers to run it if you have a good quarterback, but you do need solid guys, and you need a number of them. . .

if we trade marshall, we don't have those guys. . . the opinion that some have around here that gaffney can be some kind of replacement for #15 is laughable, i don't care WHAT he did in ONE game against that terrible secondary-- the guy isn't all that young and has never been particularly good. . . at best, he's a decent rotational #3/4 type of guy for a few years. . .

royal was a stud his first year, and a complete dud working with mcD and orton. . . stokley is old and fragile, lloyd is a scrawny, alligator-armed journeyman, and mckinley is nothing beyond a project as of right now. . .

unless royal can re-discover his form, i don't see a guy on the roster who can give us more than 40, maybe 50 catches tops-- and while you absolutely don't have to have a guy who can get 100+, you do need a go-to guy who's good enough to consistently move the chains for you. . .

while i don't at all mind being a run-heavy team, i do vastly prefer if at all possible to at least have some balance and be capable of beating a team through the air if we have to-- as opposed to, say, intentionally molding ourselves after most of the ravens teams of the past deacde, that have been almost utterly devoid of any kind of serious threat to make plays in the passing game. . . teams that just might have won another super bowl or two with that defense if they'd been able to find just one more impact player at any one of the offensive skill positions. . .

if we trade marshall, it pretty much means we're going to have at least four picks in the top three rounds-- we can certainly spare at least one of them to attempt to fill what would become a very immediate need, every bit as much as, say, linebacker or cornerback. . . that still leaves us three more picks in that range to address the LOS. . .

we don't have a stud QB, we don't have a consistent gamechanger in the return game, we don't really have any other dynamic receivers who can come up with big plays based on their talent alone as opposed to having to free them up with good scheming, and i don't know that we have a RB who can truly dominate even if the O-line improves. . . i love tough defense and a grinding run game as much as anyone, but you have to be REALLY good at them to win consistently with that model, and you don't leave yourself much margin for error-- especially if you get down early, which even good defenses WILL do sometimes. . . you make things so much easier for yourself if you have somebody on offense who can come up with those big plays to flip the field, or take a short slant to the house, or win a jump ball in the endzone. . .

obviously positive results will justify most anything legal, but i'll certainly be questioning the wisdom of JMFMCD if he ships off marshall, doesn't attempt to replace him with a legitimate talent in the draft, and goes on to throw the ball 500-600 times next year. . .

dogfish
04-12-2010, 07:27 PM
I agree with Ziggy secure the LOS and the sexy picks can come in the later picks.

The NE model clearly shows that Bill has drafted LOS players in round 1 almost every year except when they took mulroney.

But at that time they had the horses on the LOS.

Josh had his ONE deviation from that strategy last year. Thinking he had the OLINE to open holes for him.

It will be back to basics OLINE DLINE and maybe a blocking TE. On days one and TWO.
The sex begins on day 3.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

that's all well and great when you set the cornerstone of your franchise for the next 10-15 years by filling the most important position in the game with a future first-ballot hall of famer in the most blinding stroke of luck in the history of pro sports. . .

without the guy all of new england's success has been built around, belly's legendary system is just another system-- granted, it's a solid system that was working for parcells back when belly was still just one of his boys, but it's not some magic spell. . . not any more than shanahan's "mastermind" version of the famous west coast offense was magic without elway. . .

besides which, even belly invests in his receivers from time to time-- in fact, he's invested more 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and TEs than he has on offensive linemen:

WR/TE

2007 - wes welker (via trade)
2006 - chad jackson
2004 - ben watson
2003 - bethel johnson
2002 - dan graham
2002 - deion branch

OLs

2009 - sebastian vollmer
2005 - logan mankins
2001 - matt light
2000 - adrian klemm

despite the fact that you need more starting OLs than you do TEs and wide receivers. . . furthermore, he may well have invested more than that if he didn't luck into raping oakland out of a malcontent stud receiver who was still more than able to play at a high level. . . and even further more, many draftniks believe they will spend a high pick on a receiver this year. . .


after all's said, don't get me wrong-- hell, i've been on the "improve the lines" bandwagon for years!

that doesn't mean that i think we should invest ALL of our resources into it and just ignore the other facets of the team-- that's reactionary thinking. . . this isn't the 70's, and your chances of ever winning much without an effective passing game are freakin' POOR. . .

rcsodak
04-13-2010, 08:29 AM
see, i don't care about that though. . .

i know there will be a few bitter holdovers who'll never let it go-- but i don't care. . . .the broncos will move on without him, and most people will find other things to bitch about by the time the season starts. . .

people still complain about cutler-- hell, we have one guy who'll still take the barest slip of an excuse to complain about friggin' shanahan!-- but it's localized and easy to ignore. . . it's not like it makes up 65% of the readable threads here anymore. . . .

and it's different from the cutler saga. . . a large portion of our fanbase is ready for marshall to be gone, like it or not-- the only people who wanted cutler gone were RC, WTM, JR and a couple other bitter plummer holdovers. . .

LMMFAO!

So you believe that's our reasoning?

:lol:


*Forgive him, Lord, for he knows not what he says*

rcsodak
04-13-2010, 08:33 AM
I didn't read what Chaz said as addition by subtraction. He did mention drafting another wide receiver.

Do you not understand the "addition by subtraction" analogy, Tx?

In TX terms, when you execute an inmate, you are using the "addition by subtraction" theory, at it's peak.

rcsodak
04-13-2010, 08:38 AM
LMAO!!!:lol:



TOUCHE!

Isn't that "toosh"?

rcsodak
04-13-2010, 08:39 AM
Maybe, maybe not. But thus far McD has done things differently than Billy did in NE when it comes to the draft so dont be surprised if we do take one high. With McD anything is possible.

He's had ONE DRAFT, and that was short-handed and with little preparation.

:coffee:

rcsodak
04-13-2010, 08:43 AM
that's all well and great when you set the cornerstone of your franchise for the next 10-15 years by filling the most important position in the game with a future first-ballot hall of famer in the most blinding stroke of luck in the history of pro sports. . .

without the guy all of new england's success has been built around, belly's legendary system is just another system-- granted, it's a solid system that was working for parcells back when belly was still just one of his boys, but it's not some magic spell. . . not any more than shanahan's "mastermind" version of the famous west coast offense was magic without elway. . .

besides which, even belly invests in his receivers from time to time-- in fact, he's invested more 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and TEs than he has on offensive linemen:

WR/TE

2007 - wes welker (via trade)
2006 - chad jackson
2004 - ben watson
2003 - bethel johnson
2002 - dan graham
2002 - deion branch

OLs

2009 - sebastian vollmer
2005 - logan mankins
2001 - matt light
2000 - adrian klemm

despite the fact that you need more starting OLs than you do TEs and wide receivers. . . furthermore, he may well have invested more than that if he didn't luck into raping oakland out of a malcontent stud receiver who was still more than able to play at a high level. . . and even further more, many draftniks believe they will spend a high pick on a receiver this year. . .


after all's said, don't get me wrong-- hell, i've been on the "improve the lines" bandwagon for years!

that doesn't mean that i think we should invest ALL of our resources into it and just ignore the other facets of the team-- that's reactionary thinking. . . this isn't the 70's, and your chances of ever winning much without an effective passing game are freakin' POOR. . .

Didn't read the entire post, as I gotta run, but I had to ask where you were going with the BOLD area.

Belly's WR drafting is about on level with Shanny's D drafting. It SUX!

Elevation inc
04-13-2010, 08:46 AM
Charles Rogers was the #1 rated WR when he came out too. Just sayin.

so was andre johnson and larry fitzgerald.....just saying:D



:lol:

TXBRONC
04-13-2010, 09:48 AM
Do you not understand the "addition by subtraction" analogy, Tx?

In TX terms, when you execute an inmate, you are using the "addition by subtraction" theory, at it's peak.

Yes I understand it do you?


I think if Marshall is dealt and a sold WR is drafted...the offense could improve. it would be nice to see the ball spread around a bit.


I mentioned a solid receiver being drafted. By that, I mean a solid player that we could find in round 2, 3 or 4. i dont think it HAS to be something with the #11 pick

What was that again about understanding addition by subtraction? :coffee:

Do you understand what good judgement is?

Northman
04-13-2010, 09:49 AM
He's had ONE DRAFT, and that was short-handed and with little preparation.

:coffee:

Hence why i said maybe. :coffee:

turftoad
04-13-2010, 10:07 AM
so was andre johnson and larry fitzgerald.....just saying:D



:lol:

Yep, there are some good ones, those two, Calvin Johnson etc.... but not very many.

Here are some names you may or may not remember as FIRST round WR's. There are a lot more first round busts than studs at that position since 2000.

Troy Williamson
Matt Jones
Roy Williams
Reggie Williams
Micheal Clayton
Micheal Jenkins
Mike Williams
Rashawn Woods
Bryant Johnson
Donte Stallworth
Ashlie Lelie
Javon Walker
David Terrell
Koren Robinson
Freddie Mitchell
Peter Warrick
Sylvester Morris
R. Jay Soward

I'll take my chances on keeping Marshall, Thanks

TXBRONC
04-13-2010, 10:32 AM
Yep, there are some good ones, those two, Calvin Johnson etc.... but not very many.

Here are some names you may or may not remember as FIRST round WR's. There are a lot more first round busts than studs at that position since 2000.

Troy Williamson
Matt Jones
Roy Williams
Reggie Williams
Micheal Clayton
Micheal Jenkins
Mike Williams
Rashawn Woods
Bryant Johnson
Donte Stallworth
Ashlie Lelie
Javon Walker
David Terrell
Koren Robinson
Freddie Mitchell
Peter Warrick
Sylvester Morris
R. Jay Soward

I'll take my chances on keeping Marshall, Thanks

It's not an easy task to find receivers that can make it in this League.

topscribe
04-13-2010, 10:33 AM
OTOH, do you want to replace a head case with another guy that a lot of people think is going to be a head case?

seems like a bit of a bad risk to me. . . if we're willing to deal with bad character, shouldn't we just keep the bad character guy who we KNOW can dominate on the field?

i know, i know. . . dez has never been arrested, and it's probably not entirely fair to suggest that he could have serious behavior problems at the next level. . . but ya know what? tough shit. . . i'm so over the marshall headache, why even take a chance? all the ability in the world isn't worth it if the guy is another discipline problem who we end up wanting to be rid of in a few years. . .

just another reason golden tate is my favorite receiver in this draft-- he's as fierce a competitor as probably any player in this class regardless of position, but he shows no other signs of the ****ed up diva attitude that has become the norm for receivers. . . as a bonus, he should be available later than dez-- IF we could find a trade partner, we could move back from #11 and probably still get him. . . if we absolutely have to have a big receiver to replace marshall, IMO either arrelious been or demaryius thomas should be available late 1st- early 3nd, and i haven't read or heard anything indicating either one has the character concerns that dez brings. . .

JMO. . .

I would love to see Golden Tate on the squad . . . whether or not Marshall is here . . .

-----

dogfish
04-13-2010, 11:48 AM
Didn't read the entire post, as I gotta run, but I had to ask where you were going with the BOLD area.


maybe if you actually read the rest of the post you could figure it out, instead of me having to type the same shit twice. . . . :lol:


:coffee:

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 12:36 PM
I agree with Ziggy secure the LOS and the sexy picks can come in the later picks.

The NE model clearly shows that Bill has drafted LOS players in round 1 almost every year except when they took mulroney.

But at that time they had the horses on the LOS.

Josh had his ONE deviation from that strategy last year. Thinking he had the OLINE to open holes for him.

It will be back to basics OLINE DLINE and maybe a blocking TE. On days one and TWO.
The sex begins on day 3.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

that's all well and great when you set the cornerstone of your franchise for the next 10-15 years by filling the most important position in the game with a future first-ballot hall of famer in the most blinding stroke of luck in the history of pro sports. . .

without the guy all of new england's success has been built around, belly's legendary system is just another system-- granted, it's a solid system that was working for parcells back when belly was still just one of his boys, but it's not some magic spell. . . not any more than shanahan's "mastermind" version of the famous west coast offense was magic without elway. . .

besides which, even belly invests in his receivers from time to time-- in fact, he's invested more 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and TEs than he has on offensive linemen:

WR/TE

2007 - wes welker (via trade)
2006 - chad jackson
2004 - ben watson
2003 - bethel johnson
2002 - dan graham
2002 - deion branch

OLs

2009 - sebastian vollmer
2005 - logan mankins
2001 - matt light
2000 - adrian klemm

despite the fact that you need more starting OLs than you do TEs and wide receivers. . . furthermore, he may well have invested more than that if he didn't luck into raping oakland out of a malcontent stud receiver who was still more than able to play at a high level. . . and even further more, many draftniks believe they will spend a high pick on a receiver this year. . .


after all's said, don't get me wrong-- hell, i've been on the "improve the lines" bandwagon for years!

that doesn't mean that i think we should invest ALL of our resources into it and just ignore the other facets of the team-- that's reactionary thinking. . . this isn't the 70's, and your chances of ever winning much without an effective passing game are freakin' POOR. . .

Lets look at what I really said in my quote "The NE model clearly shows that Bill has drafted LOS players in round 1 almost every year except when they took mulroney. "

2009 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 34 Pat Chung DB Oregon
2 40 Ron Brace DT Boston College
2 41 Darius Butler DB Connecticut
2 58 Sebastian Vollmer T Houston

2008 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 10 Jerod Mayo ILB Tennessee
2 62 Terrence Wheatley CB Colorado
3 78 Shawn Crable OLB Michigan

1 24 Brandon Meriweather DB Miami (Fla.)
4 127 Kareem Brown DT Miami (Fla.)

2006 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota
2 36 Chad Jackson WR Florida
3 86 David Thomas TE Texas

2005 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 32 Logan Mankins G Fresno State
3 84 Ellis Hobbs CB Iowa State
3 100 Nick Kaczur T Toledo

2004 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Vince Wilfork NT Miami (Fla.)
1 32 Benjamin Watson TE Georgia
2 63 Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State

2003 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 13 Ty Warren DE Texas A&M
2 36 Eugene Wilson FS Illinois
2 45 Bethel Johnson WR Texas A&M
4 117 Dan Klecko DT Temple

2002 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Daniel Graham TE Colorado
2 65 Deion Branch WR Louisville
4 117 Rohan Davey QB Louisiana State
4 126 Jarvis Green DE Louisiana State

2001 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 6 Richard Seymour DT Georgia
2 48 Matt Light T Purdue
3 86 Brock Williams CB Notre Dame
4 96 Kenyatta Jones T South Florida
4 119 Jabari Holloway TE Notre Dame

000 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 46 Adrian Klemm T Hawaii
3 76 J.R. Redmond RB Arizona State
4 127 Greg Randall T Michigan State
5 141 Dave Stachelski TE Boise State

22 out of 41 player since 2000 10 years if I count correctly have been prioritized by Bill, coaching staff and his GM. All LOS type players yes I now consider LB as a LOS type play although IIRC only 2 of those 22 were LB's.

50+ % of these players they have drafted have been hand in the dirt players and that include a lot of TE's and if you want to look at where most of their skill players came from.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3200&type=team

Look I'm not saying that that is all they draft there, but most of the rest of there choices thru rounds four were DB's of some sort, and by the looks of things not great at it overall.

VEry few of their day one choices have bombed and they seem to have a knack for getting solid folks via FA also mostly vets that everyone else wrote off as over the hill.

I have been an advocate since for every of you win and lose on the LOS and while mikes ZBS scheme won lots of games with what most consider mediocre RB and even more so OLines types I firmly believe had we invested more on the DT and OG spots higher in the draft then there would have been more playoff wins also.

Finesse no longer wins championships good old ground game with a respectable passing game will be the future. Got to be able to score TD inside the redone and most importantly inside the 5, getting a FG means nothing if your opponent is getting a TD each time. IMHO

dogfish
04-13-2010, 12:47 PM
well, if you're counting tight ends and linebackers as line of scrimmage players, may as well throw in the quarterback too-- he lines up right behind the line of scrimmage. . .

i mean, let's think about this. . . if LBs and TEs are LOS players, then 13 out of your 22 starters are LOS players. . . if that's the case, spending 50+% of your picks to fill 50+% of your positions hardly indicates that they focus on the "LOS" more than the average team. . .

turftoad
04-13-2010, 12:54 PM
Lets look at what I really said in my quote "The NE model clearly shows that Bill has drafted LOS players in round 1 almost every year except when they took mulroney. "

2009 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 34 Pat Chung DB Oregon
2 40 Ron Brace DT Boston College
2 41 Darius Butler DB Connecticut
2 58 Sebastian Vollmer T Houston

2008 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 10 Jerod Mayo ILB Tennessee
2 62 Terrence Wheatley CB Colorado
3 78 Shawn Crable OLB Michigan

1 24 Brandon Meriweather DB Miami (Fla.)
4 127 Kareem Brown DT Miami (Fla.)

2006 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota
2 36 Chad Jackson WR Florida
3 86 David Thomas TE Texas

2005 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 32 Logan Mankins G Fresno State
3 84 Ellis Hobbs CB Iowa State
3 100 Nick Kaczur T Toledo

2004 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Vince Wilfork NT Miami (Fla.)
1 32 Benjamin Watson TE Georgia
2 63 Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State

2003 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 13 Ty Warren DE Texas A&M
2 36 Eugene Wilson FS Illinois
2 45 Bethel Johnson WR Texas A&M
4 117 Dan Klecko DT Temple

2002 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 21 Daniel Graham TE Colorado
2 65 Deion Branch WR Louisville
4 117 Rohan Davey QB Louisiana State
4 126 Jarvis Green DE Louisiana State

2001 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 6 Richard Seymour DT Georgia
2 48 Matt Light T Purdue
3 86 Brock Williams CB Notre Dame
4 96 Kenyatta Jones T South Florida
4 119 Jabari Holloway TE Notre Dame

000 - New England Patriots
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 46 Adrian Klemm T Hawaii
3 76 J.R. Redmond RB Arizona State
4 127 Greg Randall T Michigan State
5 141 Dave Stachelski TE Boise State

22 out of 41 player since 2000 10 years if I count correctly have been prioritized by Bill, coaching staff and his GM. All LOS type players yes I now consider LB as a LOS type play although IIRC only 2 of those 22 were LB's.

50+ % of these players they have drafted have been hand in the dirt players and that include a lot of TE's and if you want to look at where most of their skill players came from.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3200&type=team

Look I'm not saying that that is all they draft there, but most of the rest of there choices thru rounds four were DB's of some sort, and by the looks of things not great at it overall.

VEry few of their day one choices have bombed and they seem to have a knack for getting solid folks via FA also mostly vets that everyone else wrote off as over the hill.

I have been an advocate since for every of you win and lose on the LOS and while mikes ZBS scheme won lots of games with what most consider mediocre RB and even more so OLines types I firmly believe had we invested more on the DT and OG spots higher in the draft then there would have been more playoff wins also.

Finesse no longer wins championships good old ground game with a respectable passing game will be the future. Got to be able to score TD inside the redone and most importantly inside the 5, getting a FG means nothing if your opponent is getting a TD each time. IMHO

I just don't understand why the Patriots are not your favorite team. :D Here ya go JR: http://www.patriotsplanet.net/

TXBRONC
04-13-2010, 12:56 PM
well, if you're counting tight ends and linebackers as line of scrimmage players, may as well throw in the quarterback too-- he lines up right behind the line of scrimmage. . .

i mean, let's think about this. . . if LBs and TEs are LOS players, then 13 out of your 22 starters are LOS players. . . if that's the case, spending 50+% of your picks to fill 50+% of your positions hardly indicates that they focus on the "LOS" more than the average team. . .

Hell if you can count linebackers and tight ends as line of scrimage players you can also count wide receivers and corner backs as well.

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 01:10 PM
I just don't understand why the Patriots are not your favorite team. :D

Just like I do not understand why more folks do not respect and team that is a winner.

I believe that at one time mike was the premier HC but soon after everyone else copied his FA ideas he was bypassed by Bill who got on a roll.

If I had nor been a fan of DEN from Day one it would be very easy to become a Pats fan. They have built one hell of a team, from almost scratch they sucked big time before Craft bought them and brought in Quality coaching Much like what Pat did a few years before him.

You have to admire quality in-spite of them being an East coast team.But it all boils down to building the team and Defense inparticular with LOS studs on day one. they anchor the D and they have been able to play with less talent in the DB area for years because of it.

Same goes for OLINE when they give the QB time and the RB blocks you do not need all pro back there but ins some cases makes the players into all pros.

Does anyone think I mean really think that Brady would have made it in the NFL, if he would have been on any other team.

I know I do not the likely hood of him getting past TC on most of the teams would have been slim to none.

Northman
04-13-2010, 01:12 PM
Just like I do not understand why more folks do not respect and team that is a winner.

I believe that at one time mike was the premier HC but soon after everyone else copied his FA ideas he was bypassed by Bill who got on a roll.

If I had nor been a fan of DEN from Day one it would be very easy to become a Pats fan. They have built one hell of a team, from almost scratch they sucked big time before Craft bought them and brought in Quality coaching Much like what Pat did a few years before him.

You have to admire quality in-spite of them being an East coast team.But it all boils down to building the team and Defense inparticular with LOS studs on day one. they anchor the D and they have been able to play with less talent in the DB area for years because of it.

Same goes for OLINE when they give the QB time and the RB blocks you do not need all pro back there but ins some cases makes the players into all pros.

Does anyone think I mean really think that Brady would have made it in the NFL, if he would have been on any other team.

I know I do not the likely hood of him getting past TC on most of the teams would have been slim to none.


I guess the flipside is why are those who constantly cry and moan Bronco fans? :lol:

turftoad
04-13-2010, 01:15 PM
Just like I do not understand why more folks do not respect and team that is a winner.

I believe that at one time mike was the premier HC but soon after everyone else copied his FA ideas he was bypassed by Bill who got on a roll.

If I had nor been a fan of DEN from Day one it would be very easy to become a Pats fan. They have built one hell of a team, from almost scratch they sucked big time before Craft bought them and brought in Quality coaching Much like what Pat did a few years before him.

You have to admire quality in-spite of them being an East coast team.But it all boils down to building the team and Defense inparticular with LOS studs on day one. they anchor the D and they have been able to play with less talent in the DB area for years because of it.

Same goes for OLINE when they give the QB time and the RB blocks you do not need all pro back there but ins some cases makes the players into all pros.

Does anyone think I mean really think that Brady would have made it in the NFL, if he would have been on any other team.

I know I do not the likely hood of him getting past TC on most of the teams would have been slim to none.

However, the Broncos are NOT the Patriots and McD is NOT Billichick. And.... the Pats look like they could be on a slide.

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 01:27 PM
well, if you're counting tight ends and linebackers as line of scrimmage players, may as well throw in the quarterback too-- he lines up right behind the line of scrimmage. . .

i mean, let's think about this. . . if LBs and TEs are LOS players, then 13 out of your 22 starters are LOS players. . . if that's the case, spending 50+% of your picks to fill 50+% of your positions hardly indicates that they focus on the "LOS" more than the average team. . .

Now your being silly Dog.

How many of NE's players play on the LOS the TE's are basically another OLINE guy for as many catches as they make they are primarily Blocking TE's now it could be said Watson does not fit that bill But his first job its to block and then catch.

Does anyone think that Graham was anything but another Small OT. AS for LB they are considered part of the front seven on almost all teams. ON most 3-4 teams it is really more of a 5-2 front 90% of the time just because they OLB do not put their hand in the dirt does not take them away from attacking the LOS and particularly the QB.

Your come back to me was TE were lumped in with the WR over that many years. the fact of the matter was TE in NE are indeed LOS guys with their hands in the dirt. That is OLINE to most fans. Not grouped in with the WR as you tried to do.

WR/TE

2007 - wes welker (via trade)
2006 - chad jackson
2004 - ben watson avged 28 catches per year.
2003 - bethel johnson
2002 - dan graham avged 24 while in NE.
2002 - deion branch
Look at the number of DLINE guys they have taken day one.
2 40 Ron Brace DT Boston College
1 21 Vince Wilfork NT Miami (Fla.)
2 63 Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State
1 6 Richard Seymour DT Georgia
Since 2001

BTW all three DT have been outstanding players.

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 01:28 PM
Helps when you find a Brady in the 6th round unexpectedly

broncophan
04-13-2010, 01:39 PM
Helps when you find a Brady in the 6th round unexpectedly

lol......Unexpectedly????.....

I am sure the Patriots expected him to be gobbled up in the 5th round then........

Brady was not highly touted when he was at Michigan......the fact he was still there in the 6th round was not unexpected by anyone....

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 01:42 PM
I guess the flipside is why are those who constantly cry and moan Bronco fans? :lol:


I suspect it was because Bill dethroned mike, at first I was upset that they were doing so well.

But then I started to look at how they were doing it and While I'm not their fan I believe in the basic scheme they have used building through the draft expending day one picks on LOS type players that are most likely to be the foundation of the team for years almost decades.

If the get someone that gets to big for the team they almost always have a spare part on the shelf to plug in for it. Brace and Seymor being the latest example.

Yes they seem to have had a couple of down years but that might also have to do with the brain drain they have had the past 6-8 years also. They have lost a lot of top Assistant coaches to other teams. Now many ague that they must not be that great if they fail as most have but that does not mean they were not superb at being assistant coaches in NE.

GIve me a LOS built team anyway and they will win more than they lose and those with great players on the LOS will make those behind them better than they might have been elsewhere.

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 01:48 PM
However, the Broncos are NOT the Patriots and McD is NOT Billichick. And.... the Pats look like they could be on a slide.

NEver said Josh was Bill and maybe they are on a slide. But I doubt it will be as long as Denver's was.

Unlike a few members here I have faith in Pat and Josh to get the quality players to fit the TEAM. Not to force the TEAM around individual players.

I realize the BM is a quality WR, I will never be convinced he is worth 10+ million a year.

I feel that that money can be spent in better ways and OTHER quality players instead.

As much as I like Roland I do not think he is worth the money he is getting either.

TXBRONC
04-13-2010, 01:49 PM
lol......Unexpectedly????.....

I am sure the Patriots expected him to be gobbled up in the 5th round then........

Brady was not highly touted when he was at Michigan......the fact he was still there in the 6th round was not unexpected by anyone....

Unexpectedly is accurate. Scott Pioli when he was still with the Patriots said in retrospect if they had realized that Brady was going to turn out the way he did they would have taken sooner. So even if by your speculation they saw him as 5th rounder and even took him in the 5th it was unexpected for Brady to turn out the way he did.

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 02:24 PM
yes.. I do think Brady would have made it had it not been on the Patriots. I've heard the same quetion asked about Montana... and he went and took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship.

Seems I heard the same thing about Warner. The only reason for his success was because of Faulk and the receivers. He was purely a product of the system and surrounding talent.

Brady is a great player. The system is NOT soooo great, that it can merely change average players that wouldn't succeed, and make them 3 time Super Bowl champions. If that were the case, how come we didn't see the QBs for Washington win more than one? Joe Gibbs was an amazing coach that took average QBs to the Super Bowl. Yet none could win more than one. Its ridiculous to think that somehow Brady is transformed into one of the best players to play the QB position by some 'magical' team/system/coach. Whats Belicheck's record without Brady behind center?

broncophan
04-13-2010, 02:32 PM
yes.. I do think Brady would have made it had it not been on the Patriots. I've heard the same quetion asked about Montana... and he went and took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship.

Seems I heard the same thing about Warner. The only reason for his success was because of Faulk and the receivers. He was purely a product of the system and surrounding talent.

Brady is a great player. The system is NOT soooo great, that it can merely change average players that wouldn't succeed, and make them 3 time Super Bowl champions. If that were the case, how come we didn't see the QBs for Washington win more than one? Joe Gibbs was an amazing coach that took average QBs to the Super Bowl. Yet none could win more than one. Its ridiculous to think that somehow Brady is transformed into one of the best players to play the QB position by some 'magical' team/system/coach. Whats Belicheck's record without Brady behind center?

Cassel seemed to do o.k. when Brady was out for the season, the season before last.......and he sure didn't do anything for the chiefs last season......must be something about the system in New England....

turftoad
04-13-2010, 02:44 PM
Cassel seemed to do o.k. when Brady was out for the season, the season before last.......and he sure didn't do anything for the chiefs last season......must be something about the system in New England....

So..... you're saying that Brady would suck anywhere but NE?

topscribe
04-13-2010, 02:47 PM
So..... you're saying that Brady would suck anywhere but NE?

I think you know better than that, Turf.

The system does often help to make the QB. Yes, Montana went on to star for the
Chiefs, but the Chiefs had a good supporting cast in that particular year.

I might add that the Chiefs had two 10-6 and a 11-5 season the three seasons
before Montana got there. Then Montana guided them to 11-5 and 9-7 seasons.
Not much difference . . .

But then, the Chiefs had a 13-3 season after Montana left . . . via Steve Bono . . .

I remember how Elvis Grback did so well with the 49ers . . . good enough to shop
himself out and land with the Chiefs, where he categorically flopped. Seemed the
Chiefs did not offer the same opportunity for success as did the 49ers.

-----

broncophan
04-13-2010, 02:54 PM
So..... you're saying that Brady would suck anywhere but NE?

Where did I say that??
Cassel did ok when Brady was out for the season.....and did nothing for the chiefs last year.......just sayin...

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 03:24 PM
lol......Unexpectedly????.....

I am sure the Patriots expected him to be gobbled up in the 5th round then........

Brady was not highly touted when he was at Michigan......the fact he was still there in the 6th round was not unexpected by anyone....


Meaning... when you draft a QB in the 5th or 6th round, you don't expect him to be your franchise QB. If you have him ranked as a 5th rounder, you don't foresee him being a top QB in the NFL, and certainly not one that would beat out Drew Bledsoe and then go on to be one of the best QBs in the NFL.

You normally draft QBs in the lower rounds to be back-ups.

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 03:25 PM
Cassel seemed to do o.k. when Brady was out for the season, the season before last.......and he sure didn't do anything for the chiefs last season......must be something about the system in New England....

For the ONE season... for the year just after the team went 18-0? yeah...

Lonestar
04-13-2010, 07:22 PM
yes.. I do think Brady would have made it had it not been on the Patriots. I've heard the same quetion asked about Montana... and he went and took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship.

Seems I heard the same thing about Warner. The only reason for his success was because of Faulk and the receivers. He was purely a product of the system and surrounding talent.

Brady is a great player. The system is NOT soooo great, that it can merely change average players that wouldn't succeed, and make them 3 time Super Bowl champions. If that were the case, how come we didn't see the QBs for Washington win more than one? Joe Gibbs was an amazing coach that took average QBs to the Super Bowl. Yet none could win more than one. Its ridiculous to think that somehow Brady is transformed into one of the best players to play the QB position by some 'magical' team/system/coach. Whats Belicheck's record without Brady behind center?

I think without the drew issuse he would not ha ve nade it in the league few 6th round QB's stick and go on to star. If Bill had not taken him I'm doubting he would have been anything other than TC fodder.

He fit their scheme and was a huge longshot. To make it.

I'm glad to know that you think he would made it else where. Considering 31 other GM and head coaches passed on him 6 times.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 07:32 PM
I think without the drew issuse he would not ha ve nade it in the league few 6th round QB's stick and go on to star. If Bill had not taken him I'm doubting he would have been anything other than TC fodder.

He fit their scheme and was a huge longshot. To make it.

I'm glad to know that you think he would made it else where. Considering 31 other GM and head coaches passed on him 6 times.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Seriously? You are going to try and pull the "31 other GMs passed on him 6 times" argument? Really? How many passed on Moss, how many passed on Montana.. how many passed on Marino.. how many passed on Sharpe... how many passed on Warner? Seriously, that excuse/reasoning doesn't hold a tiny DROP of clout. You just made yourself look very foolish. Seriously? You are saying GMs have never missed on a player?

Warner was a huge long-shot as well, didn't get drafted, and was only to have success because of the Martz passing scheme, Marshall Faulk in the backfield, and Bruce on the outside. Hmm..seems he did pretty well in other systems and he wasn't drafted.

I know this. I know the pre-season before the Patriots won the Super Bowl... Belicheck pointed out that Tom Brady was their most impressive player in camps.

I don't see your point. You can't point out to me another "average" QB that has won more than 1 Super Bowl....yet a three-time Super Bowl winning QB, (and one that threw for 50 TDs in a season).... is the product of the system??? Absurd.

I'm guessing you are one that says the only reason Jerry Rice had success was because he has both Montana and Young throwing to him.... but then.. Montana only had success because he played with the 49ers, under Walsh, and had Jerry Rice to throw too. I'm pretty sure you would say that Terrell Davis was purely a product of the system as well.

I don't see a single thing about Tom Brady's game that say's he's the same kind of QB that Orton is, except he gets to play on the Patriots. Amazing.

claymore
04-13-2010, 07:57 PM
SpaceShuttle.

Ravage!!!
04-13-2010, 07:58 PM
SpaceShuttle.

Turkey Loaf

dogfish
04-13-2010, 08:28 PM
nurr, nurr. . . .

Lonestar
04-14-2010, 01:12 AM
Meaning... when you draft a QB in the 5th or 6th round, you don't expect him to be your franchise QB. If you have him ranked as a 5th rounder, you don't foresee him being a top QB in the NFL, and certainly not one that would beat out Drew Bledsoe and then go on to be one of the best QBs in the NFL.

You normally draft QBs in the lower rounds to be back-ups.

IIRC bledso played well his (TB) rookie season and then was hurt several games into his 2nd maybe 3rd year.

Not at home to check it BUT I remember distinctly they were calling for them to tank that year.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

rcsodak
04-14-2010, 07:52 PM
Yes I understand it do you?

What was that again about understanding addition by subtraction? :coffee:

Do you understand what good judgement is?

Umm....yes, I do, Tx.

I wasn't the one asking. :coffee:

Nice that coach explained it for you, though.

rcsodak
04-14-2010, 08:33 PM
maybe if you actually read the rest of the post you could figure it out, instead of me having to type the same shit twice. . . . :lol:


:coffee:

Fine, dog.

Let me be as blunt as you, then.

Your point about "belly" was half-assed. Evidently you didn't "do your homework".

The part I highlighted: in fact, he's invested more 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and TEs than he has on offensive linemen:, is proven inaccurate, per JR's post.

You picked out a handful of non-LOS players that happened to stick during the last, who-knows-how-many years. Looks like you just went through and chose names we've heard of. Yay-golly good.

He has SUCKED at drafting WR's in his tenure.

Just as Shanny did at dafting D!

I was asking for your reasoning, while making my point, in the short amount of time I had. I apologize for not giving your post my full, unadulterated time/attention.

Maybe instead of being like your hi-fivers who think smartass is the way to go, how about getting back to how you USED to actually answer straight-forward questions.

Or not.
:coffee:

TXBRONC
04-14-2010, 10:20 PM
Umm....yes, I do, Tx.

I wasn't the one asking. :coffee:

Nice that coach explained it for you, though.

Apparently not. Must be that OU education coming through again. :coffee:

Really you should learn button it up because you don't even know what good judgement is.