PDA

View Full Version : Q&A: Fixing the Denver defense's front seven is a bigger issue than Bailey's future



TXBRONC
01-20-2011, 09:54 AM
Q&A: Fixing the Denver defense's front seven is a bigger issue than Bailey's future

By Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/20/2011 01:00:00 AM MST

Q: We know the Broncos need help just about everywhere on defense. But would they really let Champ Bailey go and try to plug in a rookie at corner back? Wouldn't keeping Bailey solve one of the defense's many problems? Focus on the front seven, please. The defensive backs are not the weak link.

A: It's not a question of letting Bailey go at this point. Bailey is an unrestricted free agent whenever the new league year begins, so he can do as he pleases, roam where the contract offers take him.

Bailey had an offer of a contract extension pulled off the table by the Broncos early last season. Since that happened, a lot has changed. Coming off a 4-12 season, the Broncos face a big rebuilding job. They have a new head coach, John Fox, and they will have their sixth defensive coordinator in six years.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17140451


I think both are important but fixing the front seven is takes precedences. This didn't have to be an issue had McDaniels not broken off contract negotiations with Bailey.

T.K.O.
01-20-2011, 10:49 AM
Q&A: Fixing the Denver defense's front seven is a bigger issue than Bailey's future



I think both are important but fixing the front seven is takes precedences. This didn't have to be an issue had McDaniels not broken off contract negotiations with Bailey.

i agree with you that the front 7 is more important but....why do you assume it was mcD that broke off talks ?
in the heat of the season i really doubt mcD had much to do with contract negotiations.
it was more likely that bowlen,ellis & x had alot more to dod with the decision .
they probably already saw the writing on the wall that the D was gonna need some major overhaulin' and chose not to throw big $$$ out (especially after the doom deal) until they had a game plan to address multiple needs.:salute:

BigDaddyBronco
01-20-2011, 11:02 AM
We really don't know who it was in the Broncos front office who broke off talks with Bailey, it really doesn't matter at this point. One other thing to think about is if we take the salary that was going to go to Champ and spend it on a lower priced FA DT and a lower priced FA CB will we be better off? Would a Paul Soliai and a Drayton florence or somebody provide more value than a Champ Bailey? Hard to say.

TXBRONC
01-20-2011, 11:33 AM
i agree with you that the front 7 is more important but....why do you assume it was mcD that broke off talks ?
in the heat of the season i really doubt mcD had much to do with contract negotiations.
it was more likely that bowlen,ellis & x had alot more to dod with the decision .
they probably already saw the writing on the wall that the D was gonna need some major overhaulin' and chose not to throw big $$$ out (especially after the doom deal) until they had a game plan to address multiple needs.:salute:

It's no assumption he had that kind of control. And in the heat of season why would he try to micromanag every aspect the team when he would have been better off focusing on the bigger picture?

Northman
01-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Yea, i forget which thread it was but Xanders talked about how at the end of the day Josh had the final say on a lot of things personnel wise so and the word was Josh is the one who pulled out of the negotiating.

As to the point here, i agree that fixing the front seven is far more important. Not that i dont want to keep Bailey or have him move to safety at some point but without pressure up front he just goes to waste here like he has the last few seasons.

TXBRONC
01-20-2011, 11:48 AM
Yea, i forget which thread it was but Xanders talked about how at the end of the day Josh had the final say on a lot of things personnel wise so and the word was Josh is the one who pulled out of the negotiating.

As to the point here, i agree that fixing the front seven is far more important. Not that i dont want to keep Bailey or have him move to safety at some point but without pressure up front he just goes to waste here like he has the last few seasons.

I think Legwold is wrong that Bailey is going to want a mega contract. If his greatest desire to be on a Super Bowl winning team before he retires that's going mean a lot than a big contract.

HORSEPOWER 56
01-20-2011, 11:52 AM
I agree. Having a top pass rush can make guys like Goodman, Cox, Squid, and Vaughn look great.

Fix the defensive line and the other things will fall into line (no pun intended).

Krugan
01-20-2011, 12:42 PM
Not sure I would count on Cox to be here.

his looming issues could become quite large.

That being said, the selfish side of me wants champ to retire a bronco.

Im tired of the moving of players, has been for years.

Shame the league has become a place where, long term means, as long as your cost effective.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-20-2011, 12:48 PM
From Woody's mailbag:


Any chance John Fox will push for Champ Bailey to be re-signed? Also, with Fox on board and assuming Champ and Elvis Dumervil are at full strength and they get possibly Nick Fairley from the draft (I know all three are big "ifs"), how good will our defense be?
— Remy, Miami

Remy: Fox and Elway have been tap-dancing around Champ. A lot hinges on the collective bargaining agreement. But I have it on good authority that Champ, who wants to come back, will be signed to a four-year deal, think $42 million, or will be designated franchise player for next season.


http://www.denverpost.com/commented/...#ixzz1Bb1gSkGr

BroncoStud
01-20-2011, 01:06 PM
A SMART NFL team would do the following:

1.) Se-signed Champ
2.) Fix the defensive line


DO BOTH!

TXBRONC
01-20-2011, 01:20 PM
A SMART NFL team would do the following:

1.) Se-signed Champ
2.) Fix the defensive line


DO BOTH!

I think that was gist but something has come first.

BroncoStud
01-20-2011, 01:34 PM
I think that was gist but something has come first.

Ok, first sign Champ or Franchise him. Then draft defensive line.

Cugel
01-20-2011, 01:46 PM
We really don't know who it was in the Broncos front office who broke off talks with Bailey, it really doesn't matter at this point. One other thing to think about is if we take the salary that was going to go to Champ and spend it on a lower priced FA DT and a lower priced FA CB will we be better off? Would a Paul Soliai and a Drayton florence or somebody provide more value than a Champ Bailey? Hard to say.

Actually it DOES matter why the contract was pulled. The view expressed by Denver Post columnists was that the Broncos wanted to see how Bailey performed this season before offering him an extension -- in short it was a cost-cutting move. If Bailey didn't perform at a high level, then they could cut him loose. But, if he did, then they could franchise him and trade him or else sign him to a renewed contract.

If it was just the front office being stupidly conservative, then they have their proof -- Bailey is still worth the money based on his play in 2010.

This kind of stupidity was typical of the Mike Shanahan era as well as McDaniels. This refusal to make a commitment BEFORE a player's contract is set to expire is how the Broncos lost Reggie Hayward and Bert Berry and Brandon Marshall and Trevor Pryce. All were willing to re-sign with the team, and if the deal had been done BEFORE their contracts expired then it would have cost the team less than a FA contract (re-signing a player under contract is always cheaper than signing a FA).

The Broncos for instance thought that Pryce wasn't worth his $10 million guarantee. He was willing to re-sign and convert the salary into a signing bonus on a new contract, which would cause the cap hit to be pro-rated over the life of the contract, but the team refused -- thinking that Pryce was nearing the end of his career, and that they would be stuck with a "dead cap space" hit if he retired. (Pat Bowlen may also have just been getting cheap). Well, THAT was particularly stupid since Pryce was immediately snatched up by the Ravens who were glad to pay him what he wanted, and he was an important cog for them on their NFL leading defense for years! He's now happily starting for the Jets in the AFC Championship game. :coffee:

Normally, the player will agree to a lower price than he'd get in FA because he gets security over his last season. If he's hurt or his play declines for any reason he can lose millions or tens of millions of $ in FA. On the other hand, if his play is BETTER (like Marshall) then his value escalates.

Well, the Broncos painted themselves into a corner with Champ Bailey. He was willing to sign a contract that was LESS than he'd get in FA. But, now that he's had to bear the entire risk of injury in his FA season, while the team waited to "evaluate" what he'd be worth, why should he give them a deal? He's indicated that he'd like to return, but that he is NOT going to give the Broncos a "discount" on his contract -- not after they screwed him by pulling their offer sheet.

You just don't do that in business. It's totally UNPROFESSIONAL. Either make an offer in good faith and stick by it or don't. But, you don't make an offer and then rescind it or make an offer with an unreasonably short acceptance window (unless you are a seller entertaining other offers which doesn't apply in this case).

The Broncos stupidity comes around to bite them in the ass once again! They couldn't make up their mind about Bailey -- whether to make him an offer or let him go and they waffled and tried to have it both ways or else changed their minds in the middle of negotiations about whether they wanted to reach a deal!

Typical of the kind of decisions McMoron typically made, so that's why I think he had more than a little to do with it -- although Xanders could have been equally culpable.

I suppose if we see a continuation of these kinds of personnel screwups we'll know that Brian Xanders and Joe Ellis were more complicit in some of the blunders that are commonly blamed on McMoron than they are admitting. :coffee:

Cugel
01-20-2011, 02:00 PM
Ok, first sign Champ or Franchise him. Then draft defensive line.

That's my position as well. Plug Bailey into the gap for a year at CB and concentrate on fixing the DL! They've got enough problems without creating UNNECESSARY ones at CB!

Just pay the man and move on to other problems! If the Broncos DON'T do that then we will have convincing proof that they're just being CHEAP and don't care about seriously competing in the near future. They will be saying that they're facing a LONG-TERM rebuilding process (which is probably true but that doesn't mean you just cut loose all the best veterans on the team and start from scratch with rookies)!

If they let Lloyd and Bailey go, that's a sign that we can forget about taking this team seriously next season because whatever rookies they get in the draft are NOT going to be able to compete at a high level THIS season. And what's the point of letting your best players go and then getting replacements via FA?

That's the STUPID way Shanahan and McDaniels operated, but that was their PROBLEM, not a model to emulate! :coffee:

If the Broncos were smart, they'd make a long-term commitment to Champ Bailey and when he started slowing down as a #1 CB in a couple of seasons, convert him to FS just as he wants -- and he'd be a great one there too.

After all taking OTHER TEAM'S veteran safeties worked out GREAT for the Broncos in the cases of John Lynch and Brian Dawkins! We paid big money for those two guys in FA and they became among the Broncos best players.

How about protecting your OWN players rather than having to go out and sign FAs to fill their shoes? :coffee:

Ravage!!!
01-20-2011, 02:03 PM
I think the crappiest thing you can do to Champ, is franchise tag him. After pulling the contract back (which I fully believe was McD) when he was going to sign a deal that was less than he was asking, forcing him to play a year with just ONE left on the conract and just "waiting" to see if he was going to get injured or not and see if you would even offer him a deal.. then you turn around and don't allow him to pursue FA by tagging him, is something that would be really, REALLY, shitty.

Especially for a team that doesn't stand a chance to go anywhere next year. Not like we are "protecting" our defense for one last run at it.

If you dont think that the players see this going on... think again. It takes its toll. If the team doesn't feel YOU are going to take care for them, they don't have the same passion to play for you.

BigDaddyBronco
01-20-2011, 02:41 PM
Actually it DOES matter why the contract was pulled. The view expressed by Denver Post columnists was that the Broncos wanted to see how Bailey performed this season before offering him an extension -- in short it was a cost-cutting move. If Bailey didn't perform at a high level, then they could cut him loose. But, if he did, then they could franchise him and trade him or else sign him to a renewed contract.

If it was just the front office being stupidly conservative, then they have their proof -- Bailey is still worth the money based on his play in 2010.

This kind of stupidity was typical of the Mike Shanahan era as well as McDaniels. This refusal to make a commitment BEFORE a player's contract is set to expire is how the Broncos lost Reggie Hayward and Bert Berry and Brandon Marshall and Trevor Pryce. All were willing to re-sign with the team, and if the deal had been done BEFORE their contracts expired then it would have cost the team less than a FA contract (re-signing a player under contract is always cheaper than signing a FA).

The Broncos for instance thought that Pryce wasn't worth his $10 million guarantee. He was willing to re-sign and convert the salary into a signing bonus on a new contract, which would cause the cap hit to be pro-rated over the life of the contract, but the team refused -- thinking that Pryce was nearing the end of his career, and that they would be stuck with a "dead cap space" hit if he retired. (Pat Bowlen may also have just been getting cheap). Well, THAT was particularly stupid since Pryce was immediately snatched up by the Ravens who were glad to pay him what he wanted, and he was an important cog for them on their NFL leading defense for years! He's now happily starting for the Jets in the AFC Championship game. :coffee:

Normally, the player will agree to a lower price than he'd get in FA because he gets security over his last season. If he's hurt or his play declines for any reason he can lose millions or tens of millions of $ in FA. On the other hand, if his play is BETTER (like Marshall) then his value escalates.

Well, the Broncos painted themselves into a corner with Champ Bailey. He was willing to sign a contract that was LESS than he'd get in FA. But, now that he's had to bear the entire risk of injury in his FA season, while the team waited to "evaluate" what he'd be worth, why should he give them a deal? He's indicated that he'd like to return, but that he is NOT going to give the Broncos a "discount" on his contract -- not after they screwed him by pulling their offer sheet.

You just don't do that in business. It's totally UNPROFESSIONAL. Either make an offer in good faith and stick by it or don't. But, you don't make an offer and then rescind it or make an offer with an unreasonably short acceptance window (unless you are a seller entertaining other offers which doesn't apply in this case).

The Broncos stupidity comes around to bite them in the ass once again! They couldn't make up their mind about Bailey -- whether to make him an offer or let him go and they waffled and tried to have it both ways or else changed their minds in the middle of negotiations about whether they wanted to reach a deal!

Typical of the kind of decisions McMoron typically made, so that's why I think he had more than a little to do with it -- although Xanders could have been equally culpable.

I suppose if we see a continuation of these kinds of personnel screwups we'll know that Brian Xanders and Joe Ellis were more complicit in some of the blunders that are commonly blamed on McMoron than they are admitting. :coffee:

I was saying it didn't matter if it was Xanders/Bowlen/Ellis or McDaniels at this point, what was done was done. Hopefully, Elway can address this stuff in the future.

TXBRONC
01-20-2011, 02:51 PM
I was saying it didn't matter if it was Xanders/Bowlen/Ellis or McDaniels at this point, what was done was done. Hopefully, Elway can address this stuff in the future.

Absolutely. They can't undo what has already been done, all they can do is manage the fallout and hope they can re-sign him if that's what they want to do. ATP it sounds like they would like Champ back.

rcsodak
01-20-2011, 03:02 PM
Q&A: Fixing the Denver defense's front seven is a bigger issue than Bailey's future



I think both are important but fixing the front seven is takes precedences. This didn't have to be an issue had McDaniels not broken off contract negotiations with Bailey.
Mcd didn't. Mr Bowlen/Xanders/Ellis did
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
01-20-2011, 03:11 PM
Lmao...I still get a kick outta reading the views of others, when being portrayed as factual. :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Slick
01-20-2011, 03:15 PM
Mcd didn't. Mr Bowlen/Xanders/Ellis did
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


Lmao...I still get a kick outta reading the views of others, when being portrayed as factual. :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

So who's your source?

BroncoStud
01-20-2011, 03:44 PM
I think the crappiest thing you can do to Champ, is franchise tag him. After pulling the contract back (which I fully believe was McD) when he was going to sign a deal that was less than he was asking, forcing him to play a year with just ONE left on the conract and just "waiting" to see if he was going to get injured or not and see if you would even offer him a deal.. then you turn around and don't allow him to pursue FA by tagging him, is something that would be really, REALLY, shitty.

Especially for a team that doesn't stand a chance to go anywhere next year. Not like we are "protecting" our defense for one last run at it.

If you dont think that the players see this going on... think again. It takes its toll. If the team doesn't feel YOU are going to take care for them, they don't have the same passion to play for you.

He'll make $10 million, there is NOTHING crappy about that man. Plus it will buy the Broncos time to negotiate a new contract. Champ is going to have to be willing to move to Safety at some point, this needs to be handled properly or it could hurt the Broncos financially and offset the salary cap in future seasons.

BroncoStud
01-20-2011, 03:45 PM
Mcd didn't. Mr Bowlen/Xanders/Ellis did
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Source?

JDL
01-20-2011, 03:45 PM
Actually it DOES matter why the contract was pulled. The view expressed by Denver Post columnists was that the Broncos wanted to see how Bailey performed this season before offering him an extension -- in short it was a cost-cutting move. If Bailey didn't perform at a high level, then they could cut him loose. But, if he did, then they could franchise him and trade him or else sign him to a renewed contract.

If it was just the front office being stupidly conservative, then they have their proof -- Bailey is still worth the money based on his play in 2010.

This kind of stupidity was typical of the Mike Shanahan era as well as McDaniels. This refusal to make a commitment BEFORE a player's contract is set to expire is how the Broncos lost Reggie Hayward and Bert Berry and Brandon Marshall and Trevor Pryce. All were willing to re-sign with the team, and if the deal had been done BEFORE their contracts expired then it would have cost the team less than a FA contract (re-signing a player under contract is always cheaper than signing a FA).

The Broncos for instance thought that Pryce wasn't worth his $10 million guarantee. He was willing to re-sign and convert the salary into a signing bonus on a new contract, which would cause the cap hit to be pro-rated over the life of the contract, but the team refused -- thinking that Pryce was nearing the end of his career, and that they would be stuck with a "dead cap space" hit if he retired. (Pat Bowlen may also have just been getting cheap). Well, THAT was particularly stupid since Pryce was immediately snatched up by the Ravens who were glad to pay him what he wanted, and he was an important cog for them on their NFL leading defense for years! He's now happily starting for the Jets in the AFC Championship game. :coffee:

Normally, the player will agree to a lower price than he'd get in FA because he gets security over his last season. If he's hurt or his play declines for any reason he can lose millions or tens of millions of $ in FA. On the other hand, if his play is BETTER (like Marshall) then his value escalates.

Well, the Broncos painted themselves into a corner with Champ Bailey. He was willing to sign a contract that was LESS than he'd get in FA. But, now that he's had to bear the entire risk of injury in his FA season, while the team waited to "evaluate" what he'd be worth, why should he give them a deal? He's indicated that he'd like to return, but that he is NOT going to give the Broncos a "discount" on his contract -- not after they screwed him by pulling their offer sheet.

You just don't do that in business. It's totally UNPROFESSIONAL. Either make an offer in good faith and stick by it or don't. But, you don't make an offer and then rescind it or make an offer with an unreasonably short acceptance window (unless you are a seller entertaining other offers which doesn't apply in this case).

The Broncos stupidity comes around to bite them in the ass once again! They couldn't make up their mind about Bailey -- whether to make him an offer or let him go and they waffled and tried to have it both ways or else changed their minds in the middle of negotiations about whether they wanted to reach a deal!

Typical of the kind of decisions McMoron typically made, so that's why I think he had more than a little to do with it -- although Xanders could have been equally culpable.

I suppose if we see a continuation of these kinds of personnel screwups we'll know that Brian Xanders and Joe Ellis were more complicit in some of the blunders that are commonly blamed on McMoron than they are admitting. :coffee:

Every columnist I've read (and it has come up numerous times if you read DPO, is that it was McDaniels... so I would be careful about saying organization... as it likely wasn't Xanders, but may have had some influence from Ellis, but with the kind of power McD was wielding it wouldn't be a stretch if he did pull it. From a business standpoint it makes zero sense to let Bailey go... he is a popular jersey, if he retires a Bronco, then he will go into the Ring of Fame and be inducted as a Bronco in the Pro Football Hall of Fame... the kind of goodwill that buys you as a franchise is immeasurable really... particularly when it is a consumate professional and true good guy that you can continue to hold up as a Bronco great for generations. Even if his performance slips, the benefits far outweigh it and I doubt he slips that much (though he already has - as he no longer makes the kind of incredible plays peeling off his guy to get an INT he has no business getting... but his decline isn't horrid ...so, he is worthwhile to keep even though some even now won't admit he's lost a step.)

slim
01-20-2011, 04:18 PM
I just hope we get a QB with a stronger arm, so we can finally utilize Royal's speed.

Ravage!!!
01-20-2011, 05:23 PM
He'll make $10 million, there is NOTHING crappy about that man. Plus it will buy the Broncos time to negotiate a new contract. Champ is going to have to be willing to move to Safety at some point, this needs to be handled properly or it could hurt the Broncos financially and offset the salary cap in future seasons.

Really? Because nearly EVERY time you see a player get the Franchise tag, they complain about it. Why is that? Has NOTHING to do with the money. It has to do with not being longer term. Players don't want a ONE year deal, because they are taking all the risk, just as Champ did last year already.

He'll "take that" because he would be FORCED to "take that", and thats my point. Players do NOT feel the Franchise Tag is a GOOD thing, its looked upon as a bad thing, so yeah... its a crappy thing.

So in order to handle it properly would be to resign him to a multi-year contract, and NOT put that crappy Franchise tag on him. I didn't think Champ would be back the moment McD was hired (when I still thought he was a good hire) because I felt McD would not pay big bucks for a top corner, just as Belicheck didn't. McD proved me right by pullling the stunt with the contract on Bailey.

I feel that we can get a deal done with Bailey, but putting that Franchise Tag on him would be a slap in his face, RIGHT AFTER we slapped his face with the last contract stunt!!

Ravage!!!
01-20-2011, 05:24 PM
Champ won't go into the Ring of Fame in Denver.

dogfish
01-20-2011, 05:30 PM
Champ won't go into the Ring of Fame in Denver.

lolwut?

Ravage!!!
01-20-2011, 05:34 PM
lolwut?

I don't think he'll go in to the RoF.

How many players, that were not drafted by Denver, are in the RoF? Champ's a great player, but was brought over by trade, and has played 6 years in Denver. Not sure tats a RoF guy, as much as I Like him.

BroncoStud
01-20-2011, 06:02 PM
Really? Because nearly EVERY time you see a player get the Franchise tag, they complain about it. Why is that? Has NOTHING to do with the money. It has to do with not being longer term. Players don't want a ONE year deal, because they are taking all the risk, just as Champ did last year already.

He'll "take that" because he would be FORCED to "take that", and thats my point. Players do NOT feel the Franchise Tag is a GOOD thing, its looked upon as a bad thing, so yeah... its a crappy thing.

So in order to handle it properly would be to resign him to a multi-year contract, and NOT put that crappy Franchise tag on him. I didn't think Champ would be back the moment McD was hired (when I still thought he was a good hire) because I felt McD would not pay big bucks for a top corner, just as Belicheck didn't. McD proved me right by pullling the stunt with the contract on Bailey.

I feel that we can get a deal done with Bailey, but putting that Franchise Tag on him would be a slap in his face, RIGHT AFTER we slapped his face with the last contract stunt!!

Champ is a professional, he knows the drill. If Denver bothers to franchise him (which I assume they will) then he will make a lot of money and have the chance to negotiate a new contract.

Lonestar
01-20-2011, 06:25 PM
I was saying it didn't matter if it was Xanders/Bowlen/Ellis or McDaniels at this point, what was done was done. Hopefully, Elway can address this stuff in the future.

A realy positive concept that to few folks seem to Get.

Goodpost.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

The Glue Factory
01-20-2011, 06:47 PM
I don't think he'll go in to the RoF.

How many players, that were not drafted by Denver, are in the RoF? Champ's a great player, but was brought over by trade, and has played 6 years in Denver. Not sure tats a RoF guy, as much as I Like him.

Elway's probably the only player not drafted by Denver to be there. But he had the benefit of playing his entire career here whereas Bailey has not.

dogfish
01-21-2011, 02:54 PM
bit of news relating to the "fix the front seven" topic that didn't really deserve its own thread. . .


looks like cleveland may be switiching to a 43. . .


It sure looks like the Jauron hire is coming. Which would mean that the Browns likely will have to adjust their 3-4 personnel to fit Jauron’s 4-3 style.

It could be a difficult proposition, given the possibility that a lockout will wipe out the offseason program, training camp, and possibly more. “[W]e’ve got plans for that,” Shurmur said. “I think any new coach, you know there’s a little bit of a learning curve. But we intend to get our systems in. We feel as though we’ll get them taught, so we can play winning football come day one.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/21/pat-shurmur-wont-confirm-hire-of-dick-jauron/

this very likely means that they won't be making an effort to retain shaun rogers. . . i also wonder whether they may become open to trading up-and-coming nosetackle ahtyba rubin. . .

i keep saying it-- we should stay with the 3-4. . . this off-season is going to present a great oppourtunity to build a rugged 30 front that just doesn't come along very often, and we have all the resources necessary to make it happen. . .

why switch to a system that we may well not even have a training camp to install? teams that switch this year are going to be even farther behind the eight ball than usual-- considerably so. . .

Lonestar
01-21-2011, 03:05 PM
bit of news relating to the "fix the front seven" topic that didn't really deserve its own thread. . .


looks like cleveland may be switiching to a 43. . .

Q

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/21/pat-shurmur-wont-confirm-hire-of-dick-jauron/

this very likely means that they won't be making an effort to retain shaun rogers. . . i also wonder whether they may become open to trading up-and-coming nosetackle ahtyba rubin. . .

i keep saying it-- we should stay with the 3-4. . . this off-season is going to present a great oppourtunity to build a rugged 30 front that just doesn't come along very often, and we have all the resources necessary to make it happen. . .

why switch to a system that we may well not even have a training camp to install? teams that switch this year are going to be even farther behind the eight ball than usual-- considerably so. . .
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
01-21-2011, 03:25 PM
bit of news relating to the "fix the front seven" topic that didn't really deserve its own thread. . .


looks like cleveland may be switiching to a 43. . .



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/21/pat-shurmur-wont-confirm-hire-of-dick-jauron/

this very likely means that they won't be making an effort to retain shaun rogers. . . i also wonder whether they may become open to trading up-and-coming nosetackle ahtyba rubin. . .

i keep saying it-- we should stay with the 3-4. . . this off-season is going to present a great oppourtunity to build a rugged 30 front that just doesn't come along very often, and we have all the resources necessary to make it happen. . .

why switch to a system that we may well not even have a training camp to install? teams that switch this year are going to be even farther behind the eight ball than usual-- considerably so. . .

That is what I'm hoping for. It seems to me that it would be the best thing to do.