PDA

View Full Version : Washington/Arizona in Talks with Denver Right Now



WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 08:26 AM
Now I know Shawn Zobel isnt a well known guy...but he is twitting that the Broncos are indeed in discussions with Arizona and Washinton for them to trade up in order to take Gabbert, thinking Carolina will take Newton.


Whos his source? Dont know. But I do know Scheffter follows him.

Is it possible that Schefter has thrown the man a bone in order to kick it up a notch? Its not unheard of for media biggies to help an upandcomer.

http://twitter.com/ShawnZobel_DHQ

He has a website called Draft Headquarters.

WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 08:37 AM
Some twits from him as of 15 hours ago....its 9:41 EST at this post.

I'm not reporting on speculation. I'm reporting on things that are currently going on as we speak. I don't beat around the bush
about 15 hours ago via web

@EmPuLSe Absolutely
about 15 hours ago via web in reply to EmPuLSe

@SayreBedinger It's looking like it's going to happen. They're on the phones right now discussing deals.
about 15 hours ago via web in reply to SayreBedinger

@HogsHaven Just reporting what I've been told
about 15 hours ago via web in reply to HogsHaven

Washington is targeting GABBERT and LOCKER. Washington may trade up because they believe both GABBERT and LOCKER may not last to No. 10
about 15 hours ago via web

Washington is the darkhorse to trade up as well. They WANT and NEED a QB. They are COMMITTED to taking a QB in Round One
about 15 hours ago via web

The two will likely barter with Denver. Higher package gets No. 2 overall to select Gabbert.
about 15 hours ago via web

Blaine Gabbert is NO. 1 OVR player on CINCINNATI and ARIZONA's Board. They both know this, which is why trade talks are ensuing
about 15 hours ago via web

80-85% RIGHT NOW that Denver trades out of No. 2 overall.
about 15 hours ago via web

BREAKING: Arizona and Washington are discussing trades with Denver to move up to No. 2 overall to select Blaine Gabbert
about 15 hours ago via web

BroncoJoe
04-13-2011, 08:44 AM
What the heck are you doing awake at this hour?

BroncoNut
04-13-2011, 08:49 AM
why would AZ be looking for a qb? dont they have a solid enough one? I forget his name.

I say we trade down if the opportunity is there.

WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 08:55 AM
What the heck are you doing awake at this hour?


What else.....? :D

WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 08:56 AM
why would AZ be looking for a qb? dont they have a solid enough one? I forget his name.

I say we trade down if the opportunity is there.


They have Skelton, but hes far from anything useful right now.

TXBRONC
04-13-2011, 08:57 AM
why would AZ be looking for a qb? dont they have a solid enough one? I forget his name.

I say we trade down if the opportunity is there.

They have Derek Anderson and John Skelton. Skelton was the rookie quarterback that beat us last season in Arizona. I don't think their quarterback situation is all that stable.

BroncoNut
04-13-2011, 09:03 AM
They have Derek Anderson and John Skelton. Skelton was the rookie quarterback that beat us last season in Arizona. I don't think their quarterback situation is all that stable.

Skelton, that's who I was thinking of. what happened to Matt Leinhart? isn't he still with the organization?

WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 09:05 AM
They have Derek Anderson and John Skelton. Skelton was the rookie quarterback that beat us last season in Arizona. I don't think their quarterback situation is all that stable.

They benched Anderson for Skelton...........that should tell us something.

Last year Anderson was pitching a hissy.

I dont believe Wizenhoot likes him.

And for the record......Skelton didnt beat us. WE beat us.

Skelton was like 15 of 37, 146 yards. We on the other hand, turned the ball over 6 times, including 3 INTs by Cryle Ortoon.

MileHighCrew
04-13-2011, 09:18 AM
Skelton, that's who I was thinking of. what happened to Matt Leinhart? isn't he still with the organization?

Matt is a Texan. I thought AZ had a Max...... also as QB. Didn't Max.... start to open last season?

BeefStew25
04-13-2011, 09:19 AM
Matt is a Texan. I thought AZ had a Max...... also as QB. Didn't Max.... start to open last season?

Max Kellerman. Average.

BroncoNut
04-13-2011, 09:20 AM
Matt is a Texan. I thought AZ had a Max...... also as QB. Didn't Max.... start to open last season?

man, I guess I just do not follow that closely. I should. I do remember Skelton starting for AZ, not sure what his first name was.

BeefStew25
04-13-2011, 09:24 AM
man, I guess I just do not follow that closely. I should. I do remember Skelton starting for AZ, not sure what his first name was.

Red Skelton. Guy is a riot.

BroncoNut
04-13-2011, 09:25 AM
Red Skelton. Guy is a riot.

I remember that name too. Not associated with the NFL though.

MileHighCrew
04-13-2011, 09:31 AM
Max Kellerman. Average.

That's it. I assumed he wasn't great since he lasted only a couple games and his name escaped me. Thanks

AZBronco
04-13-2011, 09:46 AM
They have Derek Anderson and John Skelton. Skelton was the rookie quarterback that beat us last season in Arizona. I don't think their quarterback situation is all that stable.

That was the only game I got to go to last season, and I remember getting embarrassed by their kicker, Feeley. Skelton didn't look like anything special either, especially with Wisenhunt on the hot seat.

TXBRONC
04-13-2011, 09:52 AM
Skelton, that's who I was thinking of. what happened to Matt Leinhart? isn't he still with the organization?

They cut him loose last year.

BroncoWave
04-13-2011, 09:54 AM
Matt is a Texan. I thought AZ had a Max...... also as QB. Didn't Max.... start to open last season?

Max Hall, from BYU

topscribe
04-13-2011, 10:07 AM
I remember that name too. Not associated with the NFL though.

Man, you just made me feel old . . .

-----

Traveler
04-13-2011, 10:18 AM
Now I know Shawn Zobel isnt a well known guy...but he is twitting that the Broncos are indeed in discussions with Arizona and Washinton for them to trade up in order to take Gabbert, thinking Carolina will take Newton.


Whos his source? Dont know. But I do know Scheffter follows him.

Is it possible that Schefter has thrown the man a bone in order to kick it up a notch? Its not unheard of for media biggies to help an upandcomer.

http://twitter.com/ShawnZobel_DHQ

He has a website called Draft Headquarters.


Kid looks like he's no older than 12.

Denver Native (Carol)
04-13-2011, 10:32 AM
Some things from Zobel's website:


Over the last three years, Draft Headquarters has ranked among the most accurate draft projection services in the nation. Shawn Zobel is a nationally recognized expert on ranking college football players and has proven to be one of the most accurate and reliable sources for player selection during the draft

"Shawn Zobel is like a lot of college players themselves -- a young blue chipper. He knows the draft and anyone who reads his stuff also will." - ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter

http://www.draftheadquarters.com/

topscribe
04-13-2011, 10:36 AM
Some things from Zobel's website:



http://www.draftheadquarters.com/

That's quite an endorsement, coming from Schefter . . .

-----

dogfish
04-13-2011, 11:42 AM
meh. . .he may understand the draft, but no way do i buy that this kid has team contacts or sources. . . he's just guessing. . .

of course i would love for this to happen, but IMO it's just fantasy and daydreams at this point. . .

we'll see. . .

cuzz4169
04-13-2011, 11:44 AM
I hope we do trade back...Then we all don't have to be crushed when marcell dareus turns out to be an avg. player.

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:04 PM
larry fitz isn't in favor. . .


“I would doubt that we would draft a quarterback that high (No. 5),” Fitzgerald told FOX Sports Arizona on Tuesday. “I would doubt it. But, who am I? I’m just a player.”

Fitzgerald would prefer “Anybody that’s going to help us win” playing under center for the Cardinals in 2011.

It sounds like Arizona’s All-Pro receiver, who just so happens to be entering a contract year, is sending upper management a direct message: He wants a veteran (Marc Bulger?) throwing him the rock next season.

Not Blaine Gabbert.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/fitzgerald-sends-cardinals-a-message-dont-draft-gabbert/

GEM
04-13-2011, 12:11 PM
I don't want to drop all the way down to 10th or whatever WA is at. I know we need more picks, but that 10ish area gets a bit dicey.

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't want to drop all the way down to 10th or whatever WA is at. I know we need more picks, but that 10ish area gets a bit dicey.

i think 10-12 would be ****in' beautiful-- no temptation to mess around with patrick peterson or von miller, we can get serious with JJ watt, cameron jordan or corey liuget. . .

i also think it's probably a pipe dream unless they miraculously sign a CBA in the next few weeks. . . .

topscribe
04-13-2011, 12:20 PM
i think 10-12 would be ****in' beautiful-- no temptation to mess around with patrick peterson or von miller, we can get serious with JJ watt, cameron jordan or corey liuget. . .

i also think it's probably a pipe dream unless they miraculously sign a CBA in the next few weeks. . . .

Just think: a #10 plus a late first-rounder, plus another second . . .

I might think I died and went to heaven . . .



(I don't know how that could happen. Looks as if my math is a bit rusty.)


-----

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:27 PM
here's this from rob rang, a legitimately connected draftnik:


According to multiple sources in the league, the Denver Broncos, Tennessee Titans, Washington Redskins and Chicago Bears are all exploring their options.

The Broncos, owners of the No. 2 overall pick, are thought the unlikeliest to actually be able to trade out of their selection. The significant cost of signing a player drafted that high and this year's lack of an elite prospect hurts their chances.


The Redskins, owners of the 10th overall pick, also could be looking to trade down and acquire more picks. Washington does not have a third or fourth round pick in this year's draft and have several needs. Mike Shanahan is thought likely to pick up a quarterback in this year's draft and has to figure out a way to add talent to a 3-4 defense still largely built on players ideally suited to a four-man front.

http://rob-rang.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/13682485/28467428

all sorts of stuff out there right now-- make what you will of it. . . i'm positive we'd love to trade out, but don't really see it happening. . .

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:32 PM
Just think: a #10 plus a late first-rounder, plus another second . . .

I might think I died and went to heaven . . .



(I don't know how that could happen. Looks as if my math is a bit rusty.)


-----

yea, i'm not sure where you got that extra first rounder-- washington only has one. . . if they send us #12, the compensation might have to include next year's first round pick plus this year's second, but we wouldn't be getting another first this year. . .

and frankly, i just don't see how shanahan can give up three really high picks for blaine freakin' gabbert-- dude just isn't that impressive. . . washington has needs all over the board and limited resources to fill them. . . a trade all the way up to number two would cripple them. . .

Denver Native (Carol)
04-13-2011, 12:40 PM
Would it make sense for the Broncos to draft a QB at #2 - one who they know other teams have their eye on, and then immediately trade whoever they drafted to whatever team is willing to give up the most? Hope that makes sense.

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:45 PM
Would it make sense for the Broncos to draft a QB at #2 - one who they know other teams have their eye on, and then immediately trade whoever they drafted to whatever team is willing to give up the most? Hope that makes sense.

no. . . the league has already stated that this can't happen without a CBA in place. . . no trading drafted players, only picks-- we're stuck with whoever we draft, barring a new CBA being signed prior to draft day. . .

Denver Native (Carol)
04-13-2011, 12:51 PM
no. . . the league has already stated that this can't happen without a CBA in place. . . no trading drafted players, only picks-- we're stuck with whoever we draft, barring a new CBA being signed prior to draft day. . .

Still 15 days left for that to happen :D

dogfish
04-13-2011, 12:56 PM
Still 15 days left for that to happen :D

you're an optimist. . . :laugh:

Denver Native (Carol)
04-13-2011, 01:06 PM
you're an optimist. . . :laugh:

ALWAYS - I hope for the best, and RIGHT way for something to be done, regardless what it pertains to, until the last SECOND

BORDERLINE
04-13-2011, 01:11 PM
I guess i'm the only one who is not in favor of this...

I would much rather take the best defensive linemen we have on the board and don't look back. All this trade down to the 10 pick for another second rounder does not make any sense to me. I have never seen the Broncos draft so high in the draft before make it count WE have a shot at landing a real good player at 2nd overall DON'T BLOW It

cuzz4169
04-13-2011, 01:13 PM
I think J.J. Watt is most overrated player in draft! J.J. Watt = Vernon Gholstan

HORSEPOWER 56
04-13-2011, 01:31 PM
I don't want to drop all the way down to 10th or whatever WA is at. I know we need more picks, but that 10ish area gets a bit dicey.

I don't think Washington even has a second round pick this year (traded for McNabb to Philly last year) so WTF could they possibly be offering in trade to package with the #10 pick to get all the way up to #2? Next year's 1st rounder? They'd pretty much have to give up their entire draft (Ricky Williams style) to get from #10 to #2 without a second round pick in this draft unless they are offering a top player or two, also.

Who could they offer that we'd want? McNabb? Cooley? Orakpo (unlikely, but would be nice)? NTM, without a CBA the only thing they can trade right now is draft picks which they don't have...

Short of giving up most of third year's draft along with say next year's 1st rounder, Washington doesn't have the horses (no pun intended) to move up to #2 from #10. I think this kid is sensationalizing a little. He reminds me of the Justin TV kid that swore that we were getting John Abraham from the Jets a few years ago and that he had "inside info" that thew deal was already done.

** EDIT: I was wrong, they don't have a 3rd or a 4th round pick this year. I'm not sure if it's worth goin all the way back to #10 for just their 1st and 2nd round picks.

I know we are actively shopping the #2 pick, but I don't think we've received any real offers as of yet.

HORSEPOWER 56
04-13-2011, 01:35 PM
I guess i'm the only one who is not in favor of this...

I would much rather take the best defensive linemen we have on the board and don't look back. All this trade down to the 10 pick for another second rounder does not make any sense to me. I have never seen the Broncos draft so high in the draft before make it count WE have a shot at landing a real good player at 2nd overall DON'T BLOW It

I'm with you. We spent a decade complaining that we never drafted high enough to get elite D-linemen. Now we have that opportunity and we want to trade it away? No thanks...

broncobryce
04-13-2011, 01:39 PM
Maybe it will only happen if carolina passes on newton.teams are doing all their homework
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

broncofaninfla
04-13-2011, 01:53 PM
Thanks to Mcd we are now a 4-12 football team, we need all of the picks we can get in the first three rounds. There are a lot of holes to fill. My preference is to trade back assuming we get properly compensated. If not stand pat and snag Dareus if he's there.

horsepig
04-13-2011, 02:03 PM
I agree, I just prefer Fairley's considerable upside potential to Dareus.

BORDERLINE
04-13-2011, 02:05 PM
the way I look at it is there is at least 3 defensive linemen that are worth that 2nd overall pick and I really hope the Denver Scouts do there homework on them because on come draft day we can't afford to be wrong

robert ethan
04-13-2011, 02:05 PM
This was the scenario I outlined a couple of months back. Not that anyone remembers or cares. :(

BroncoNut
04-13-2011, 02:08 PM
Would it make sense for the Broncos to draft a QB at #2 - one who they know other teams have their eye on, and then immediately trade whoever they drafted to whatever team is willing to give up the most? Hope that makes sense.

yeah it does and I have played this scenario out in my mind. If we do do that, Washington, Arizona, whoever esle is in need of a qb will draft Dliinemen in response and john and mr X, and Fox will then see how the value lines up and make a decision based on that to trade or keep the qb. I can very much see this happeniing, and I'm not so sure it would be such a bad thing

robert ethan
04-13-2011, 02:20 PM
The flaw in Zobel's analysis is, that if Gabbert is #1 on Cincy's list as well, the Bengals are also going to try to trade up a couple of spots to ensure that no one trades ahead of them. Basically, if Newton goes first, (a concept I have a hard time wrapping my head around), every team wanting Gabbert has to try to trade with Denver. The same holds true if Gabbert goes first and other teams want Newton.

Lonestar
04-13-2011, 02:39 PM
does anyone think that the top ten choices this year will not be affected by the new CBA which has to happen prior to any of them signing with their teams.

I will encompass all the aspects of the CBA.

How else could it happen? they put it all on the rookies for next year.

The Rookie contract issue is the least of the problems to be worked out in fact I thought I heard the players gave that up already.

robert ethan
04-13-2011, 02:49 PM
But players can't sign contracts without a CBA. Without that the team's will not sign anyone, since they are locking out the players.

WARHORSE
04-13-2011, 06:02 PM
The flaw in Zobel's analysis is, that if Gabbert is #1 on Cincy's list as well, the Bengals are also going to try to trade up a couple of spots to ensure that no one trades ahead of them. Basically, if Newton goes first, (a concept I have a hard time wrapping my head around), every team wanting Gabbert has to try to trade with Denver. The same holds true if Gabbert goes first and other teams want Newton.

Makes sense to me.

Even taking Newton number one overall.


What we saw in Tebow last year on the field, Cameron has a little more of, with the exceptance of some lower leg power.

But he has a little bigger arm.

Like Vick and Young, the athletic ability of this guy can change...and win...games.

With only a first round pick and no second, Carolina is pretty much stuck taking Newton or Gabbert, cause no single other players have the ability to make an immediate impact.

My personal opium of course.

With a good defense and run game, Newton can win in Carolina.

NightTerror218
04-13-2011, 07:21 PM
I am hoping we trade back to 5....looks like we can still get Dareus and get some picks out of it. Expected to have Newton, Miller, Peterson, and Gillbert drafter before 5 (AZ pick). Unless Washington gives us one heck of deal of many picks this year and next.

Dzone
04-13-2011, 07:27 PM
Skelton AKA Clem Kadiddlehopper

WARHORSE
04-14-2011, 03:08 AM
http://draftheadquarters.com/dhqblogs/?p=708


Add Cincy to the mix.

4. Cincinnati – The Bengals have Blaine Gabbert at the top of their board and also have Cam Newton on the radar. At this point, I’m convinced either Gabbert or Georgia’s A.J. Green will be the pick here on draft day. They have been talking to Denver about moving up two spots to land Gabbert, but it’s unclear how close they are to completing a deal. Both Cincinnati and Arizona know that each team wants to land Gabbert, making this an interesting situation to see who would be willing to give up more to acquire him at No. 2 overall.

T.K.O.
04-15-2011, 10:14 AM
best of both worlds if we can pick up a high 2nd andmove down 2 to 3 spots !
we would likely still get the guy we want (dareus) and have 3 2nd round picks to snag :defense::defense::defense::elefant:

silkamilkamonico
04-15-2011, 10:23 AM
The fact that Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbert could be the first 2 picks in what is thought of as arguably the worst QB draft class, ever, only validates why the NFL must be locked out next season.

Ravage!!!
04-15-2011, 10:29 AM
The fact that Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbert could be the first 2 picks in what is thought of as arguably the worst QB draft class, ever, only validates why the NFL must be locked out next season.

It does??? :confused: How so?

silkamilkamonico
04-15-2011, 11:02 AM
Stupidity doesn't go a long way in a billion dollar industry. I think you are seeing that now with all the catfighting between the grown men owner, and big boy football players.

I think my favorite part, is the NFL fanbase is going to come back full affect, regardless of if they play next year, or lock out and come back the year after.

Traveler
04-15-2011, 11:19 AM
Stupidity doesn't go a long way in a billion dollar industry. I think you are seeing that now with all the catfighting between the grown men owner, and big boy football players.

I think my favorite part, is the NFL fanbase is going to come back full affect, regardless of if they play next year, or lock out and come back the year after.

;)My 35-40+ year Bronco addiction is pretty hard to walk away from.:D

Denver Native (Carol)
04-15-2011, 10:06 PM
The Houston Chronicle is reporting that the Washington Redskins are trying to move up and get a quarterback.

The Denver Broncos are willing to listen to offers for their No. 2 pick. The Redskins have the No. 10 pick. The two quarterbacks who are expected to be taken before No. 10 are Auburn’s Cam Newton and Missouri’s Blaine Gabbert.

It is natural to think the John Elway and the Broncos and the Redskins and former Denver coach Mike Shanahan could be trading partners.

However, there are some obstacles to that pairing. It’s been widely believed that the Broncos would prefer to trade down no further than No. 8 to ensure they get a top defensive player.

rest of article - http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/39321/could-elway-shanahan-be-trade-partners

robert ethan
04-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Denver is still bringing in Gabbert next week. There isn't much reason for them to throw up smoke screens at this point. Their pick isn't going to be worth any more in trade if they do. Curious.

spikerman
04-15-2011, 11:04 PM
No matter what happens, once Denver is on the clock it's going to be very exciting!

Superchop 7
04-15-2011, 11:18 PM
Look Arizona.....

I want your 5 and 38 pick this year.....

And your second rounder next year....(which will be nice and high)

Deal is done......sign on the dotted line.

Superchop 7
04-15-2011, 11:24 PM
Or Mike is giving away the farm to us next year.....

Its up to you.....you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 06:30 AM
rest of article - http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/39321/could-elway-shanahan-be-trade-partners

That makes sense all indications are that three of their top choices are Dareus, Fairley, and Peterson. Those three will be gone before the 10th pick in the draft.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-16-2011, 05:36 PM
Trading back 2-3 spots, even if we only get an additional #2, is the PERFECT scenario. I'd obviously still want Dareus, and I think we'd still have a shot at him. Buffalo is a wild card if both QBs are gone though. Do they take Von? AJ? Or how about a DT? At least if we were to deal w/ Cincy, Buffalo couldn't take Dareus AND Fairley.

I know it's impossible to predict, but would Elway dare try and predict which team may have the best shot at the #1 overall in 2012 and try to swap with them? We move back and have a shot at Luck if Tebow doesn't show the promise many believe he can. Unfortunately, Buffalo won't trade up 1 spot and Cleveland won't go QB.

WARHORSE
04-16-2011, 11:15 PM
Trading back 2-3 spots, even if we only get an additional #2, is the PERFECT scenario. I'd obviously still want Dareus, and I think we'd still have a shot at him. Buffalo is a wild card if both QBs are gone though. Do they take Von? AJ? Or how about a DT? At least if we were to deal w/ Cincy, Buffalo couldn't take Dareus AND Fairley.

I know it's impossible to predict, but would Elway dare try and predict which team may have the best shot at the #1 overall in 2012 and try to swap with them? We move back and have a shot at Luck if Tebow doesn't show the promise many believe he can. Unfortunately, Buffalo won't trade up 1 spot and Cleveland won't go QB.


Buffalo may indeed trade up one spot to ensure they get their man.
Most teams have already worked out a couple of trade scenarios weeks before the draft comes around and then they tweak them as the day draws near.

If Buffalo really wants Gabbert, and they know Cam is going number one. They will undoubtedly talk with the Broncos saying, if it looks like youre going to trade with Cincy, what will it take to get the pick? Denver may say, a second rounder because theyre getting alot more from Cincy.
If Buffalo knows Cincy or AZ have a deal in place with Denver, they may try and stop it by offering a package themselves.

Depending on who offers what, Denver may or may not trade with Buffalo.


What is the cost of Buffalo moving up to Denvers spot? It cost a 2nd rounder because its 400 pts. Buffalos 2nd rounder is worth 560 pts....so maybe they tell Denver, we'll offer you our 2nd and you give us a third back next year.

So Cincy wants to trade up.....the value is 800pts. So Cincy offers Denver either their first next year and a third this year, or their second and third this year. Denver takes their first next year and their third.

So Denver tells Buffalo, we got Cincys first next year and third. Buffalo would then have to ask itself whether they would like to offer something to entice Denver away.

What also matters is if there is a player that Denver really wants specifically vs there being a couple of players they would be happy with.

If they REALLY want Dareus, and they trade down with Cincy, Denver would have to live with possibly losing Dareus in the trade. If they really dont care between Dareus and say Von Miller, then it doesnt really matter, whoever gives the best package will get their pick.

Buffalo may have to match Cincys offer.

Shananahan
04-17-2011, 01:47 AM
What is the cost of Buffalo moving up to Denvers spot? It cost a 2nd rounder because its 400 pts. Buffalos 2nd rounder is worth 560 pts....so maybe they tell Denver, we'll offer you our 2nd and you give us a third back next year.
Yeah but it wouldn't happen like that at all. If Denver had a deal in place with Cinci, and Buffalo really wanted Gabbert, Denver would be asking them for at least what Cinci was offering in order to swap spots. At least, they sure as hell should in that scenario.

WARHORSE
04-17-2011, 06:46 AM
Yeah but it wouldn't happen like that at all. If Denver had a deal in place with Cinci, and Buffalo really wanted Gabbert, Denver would be asking them for at least what Cinci was offering in order to swap spots. At least, they sure as hell should in that scenario.

Read the rest of the post. I agree.

dogfish
04-17-2011, 06:49 AM
Read the rest of the post. I agree.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. . .



[/LordTrychon]

TXBRONC
04-17-2011, 07:22 PM
Trading back 2-3 spots, even if we only get an additional #2, is the PERFECT scenario. I'd obviously still want Dareus, and I think we'd still have a shot at him. Buffalo is a wild card if both QBs are gone though. Do they take Von? AJ? Or how about a DT? At least if we were to deal w/ Cincy, Buffalo couldn't take Dareus AND Fairley.

I know it's impossible to predict, but would Elway dare try and predict which team may have the best shot at the #1 overall in 2012 and try to swap with them? We move back and have a shot at Luck if Tebow doesn't show the promise many believe he can. Unfortunately, Buffalo won't trade up 1 spot and Cleveland won't go QB.

I don't think that Elway would dare try and predict what team might have the best shot at the #1 overall pick in 2012. I think pretty safe to say that moving more than a few spots down in the draft order would put Denver in serious jeopardy of getting Dareus or Fairley.

Let just say Denver has decided that they will trade down to 10 because their strategy is to take Peterson and then one or two of the second tier defensive tackles later on. That could end up blowing up faces very easily because from what I've been hearing Dareus, Fairley, and Peterson are expected to well before the 10th pick.

Shananahan
04-18-2011, 02:32 AM
Read the rest of the post. I agree.
Yeah, my bad. I jumped the gun.

atwater27
04-18-2011, 08:23 AM
I had a dream last night Denver traded down and somehow got 2 #1's (don't know if both were this year or next year... and 2 number 2's. an interesting thing? A QB was involved, and from what I can remember of my dream, it was a QB coming to us... and he was black.

underrated29
04-18-2011, 10:58 AM
I had a dream last night Denver traded down and somehow got 2 #1's (don't know if both were this year or next year... and 2 number 2's. an interesting thing? A QB was involved, and from what I can remember of my dream, it was a QB coming to us... and he was black.



Question, who is the player the broncos are considering that you do not want the most?



I had a dream a couple years ago we drafted Jonathan Stewart. He was who I wanted and I did NOT want anything to do with Clady...My dream was opposite. Perhaps yours is too.

King87
04-18-2011, 12:53 PM
http://draftheadquarters.com/dhqblogs/?p=708


Add Cincy to the mix.

4. Cincinnati – The Bengals have Blaine Gabbert at the top of their board and also have Cam Newton on the radar. At this point, I’m convinced either Gabbert or Georgia’s A.J. Green will be the pick here on draft day. They have been talking to Denver about moving up two spots to land Gabbert, but it’s unclear how close they are to completing a deal. Both Cincinnati and Arizona know that each team wants to land Gabbert, making this an interesting situation to see who would be willing to give up more to acquire him at No. 2 overall.
This guy is full of it.

Go ahead and figure out how many times Cincinnati has moved UP or BACK in the first round since Mike Brown has been the owner.

Zero.

slim
04-18-2011, 01:21 PM
This guy is full of it.

Go ahead and figure out how many times Cincinnati has moved UP or BACK in the first round since Mike Brown has been the owner.

Zero.

Maybe it's time to try a different approach?

King87
04-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Maybe it's time to try a different approach?

Not saying it would be wrong or bad, I'm saying that Mike Brown does not change.

TXBRONC
04-18-2011, 02:02 PM
This guy is full of it.

Go ahead and figure out how many times Cincinnati has moved UP or BACK in the first round since Mike Brown has been the owner.

Zero.

History says no but there is first time for everything.

dogfish
04-18-2011, 02:23 PM
This guy is full of it.

Go ahead and figure out how many times Cincinnati has moved UP or BACK in the first round since Mike Brown has been the owner.

Zero.

i keep telling people there's no way the cheap-ass bengals or cardinals trade up. . . it's just not happening. . .

King87
04-18-2011, 02:50 PM
i keep telling people there's no way the cheap-ass bengals or cardinals trade up. . . it's just not happening. . .

Paul Brown didn't even believe in it.

Then again, Paul Brown fielded excellent teams, was the godfather of the combine and was the guy who cooked up the West Coast Offense with his offensive coordinator, Bill Walsh, but still.

It's not happening.

In THIS case, I am happy because the Bengals don't need to take Newton or any QB in the first round. When it cost us Steven Jackson, that was when I was pissed.

dogfish
04-18-2011, 06:12 PM
The lack of veteran trades (and signings) has made this pre-draft period quieter than usual. Most team executives expect a similar lack of action during the draft, when only picks can be dealt.

“It’s completely dead out there this year,” a NFC G.M. told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports! “Nothing!”

While the rookie wage scale uncertainty could be a small factor, another decision maker believes the lack of separation at the top of this draft along with so-so quarterbacks will make teams stay put

“Unless you’re desperate for one of the quarterbacks – and I don’t think anybody is really that desperate this year – I think most teams are looking at the top end of the draft and being patient,” another G.M. told Cole.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/18/teams-expect-a-lack-of-draft-trades/

TXBRONC
04-18-2011, 06:14 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/18/teams-expect-a-lack-of-draft-trades/

In other words, the chances of teams moving up and the board are slim and none.

WARHORSE
04-18-2011, 10:05 PM
In other words, the chances of teams moving up and the board are slim and none.


Not true. Cant believe anything out there right now.

TXBRONC
04-18-2011, 11:13 PM
Not true. Cant believe anything out there right now.

I thinks it's very believable. With no way to move current players teams are going to be hesitant to make a lot trades. This something that has been talked about even well before the lock out started. There might be some small moves here and there but I doubt like hell we'll see big moves where several picks go to one team just so that can move up in this draft.

WARHORSE
04-19-2011, 03:26 AM
I thinks it's very believable. With no way to move current players teams are going to be hesitant to make a lot trades. This something that has been talked about even well before the lock out started. There might be some small moves here and there but I doubt like hell we'll see big moves where several picks go to one team just so that can move up in this draft.

Well, we dont see that much regardless in this day and age. But the odds are far from slim and none.

Maybe we wont see a Washington try and trade up, but giving up a first rounder to move in the draft is commonplace pretty much.

And with the rookie wage scale coming, I think its more conducive than ever.

We may or may not see moves.....we'll find out soon enough. I believe we will because we have 11 teams all coveting the most important position in the game: QB

You dont see that very often.

TXBRONC
04-19-2011, 06:22 AM
Well, we dont see that much regardless in this day and age. But the odds are far from slim and none.

Maybe we wont see a Washington try and trade up, but giving up a first rounder to move in the draft is commonplace pretty much.

And with the rookie wage scale coming, I think its more conducive than ever.

We may or may not see moves.....we'll find out soon enough. I believe we will because we have 11 teams all coveting the most important position in the game: QB

You dont see that very often.

I just don't see any big moves coming because all they have to work with is the draft picks. Now that the lock out is in place they can do anything with current players. While a rookie salary cap is coming it's not in place just yet and I'm not sure if will effect this year's draft class. I don't doubt that many teams covet the quarterback position but are they going to be willing to give up a lot of draft picks without having had free agency? There will probably be some trading on a small scale but huge trades that involve multiple picks I don't see happening this year.

BigSarge87
04-19-2011, 01:25 PM
I don't think not being able to trade players will matter much on draft day.

It seems like draft day trades usually involve picks for picks, don't they?

underrated29
04-19-2011, 02:17 PM
I think we will see a fair amount of trades, because without Free Agency teams will need to target specific positions and not take the chance that they miss out on their players.


But I do not see any trades happening with us in the top 10. Perhaps some teams trade up or down with a team like sfo or ten or something. But we are not going anywhere. No one is going to offer us something good enough.

TXBRONC
04-19-2011, 02:26 PM
I think we will see a fair amount of trades, because without Free Agency teams will need to target specific positions and not take the chance that they miss out on their players.


But I do not see any trades happening with us in the top 10. Perhaps some teams trade up or down with a team like sfo or ten or something. But we are not going anywhere. No one is going to offer us something good enough.

Maybe but without the ability to fill in holes with free agents givings up picks might leave a team short handed.

TXBRONC
04-19-2011, 02:27 PM
I don't think not being able to trade players will matter much on draft day.

It seems like draft day trades usually involve picks for picks, don't they?

Much of that is predicated on what has happened in free agency.

dogfish
04-19-2011, 02:48 PM
I think we will see a fair amount of trades, because without Free Agency teams will need to target specific positions and not take the chance that they miss out on their players.


But I do not see any trades happening with us in the top 10. Perhaps some teams trade up or down with a team like sfo or ten or something. But we are not going anywhere. No one is going to offer us something good enough.

yep. . . with the uncertainty about the CBA/rookie wage scale, i doubt we see any more movement in the top 10-15 than we ever do. . .

i think it'll go batshit crazy after that. . . once those huge guaranteed dollars aren't in play, i expect teams to be trading all over the board. . . with no free agency period, any need that you perceive as a must-fill will have to be filled through the draft-- unlike every other year. . . once it gets into the 20's, i expect the trades to start flying as normally-conservative GMs manuevre to get the guys they need. . .

adding to the urgency will be the fact that most teams did little in terms of re-signing their own pending free agents, and quite frankly no one knows exactly which guys will become unrestricted this year. . .



That’s why Titans General Manager Mike Reinfeldt foresees a lot of trades coming during the upcoming NFL draft.

“For some reason I think there’s probably going to be a little bit more [trading], but I can’t really tell you why,” Reinfeldt told Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean. “I just have a gut that people are kind of anxious to do something and say, ‘What the heck? Let’s make a few trades.’”

As long as the lockout is going on, players cannot be traded. So all teams can do is trade draft picks. But once those draft picks start coming off the board, Reinfeldt thinks his colleagues will be anxious to do all they can. It’s the only chance they’ll have to do substantive work until the lockout ends.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/19/titans-g-m-what-the-heck-let%e2%80%99s-make-a-few-trades/

rcsodak
04-19-2011, 02:58 PM
The Godfather (GBrandt)says he sees little difference between #'s 10-40, talent/value-wise.
Some are wondering if Leugitt(sp), rising fast, might not pass falling Fairley.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

WARHORSE
04-19-2011, 03:06 PM
I just don't see any big moves coming because all they have to work with is the draft picks. Now that the lock out is in place they can do anything with current players. While a rookie salary cap is coming it's not in place just yet and I'm not sure if will effect this year's draft class. I don't doubt that many teams covet the quarterback position but are they going to be willing to give up a lot of draft picks without having had free agency? There will probably be some trading on a small scale but huge trades that involve multiple picks I don't see happening this year.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/19/titans-g-m-what-the-heck-let’s-make-a-few-trades/


The impending rookie cap next year will effect the deals this year.

If Im an NFL owner like Richardson of the Panthers, theres no way I give a 50 plus million a year signing bonus to a player. QB or no qb.

If I draft Cam Newton, Id tell him, I'll give you 25 mil guaranteed and not a cent more. If you dont like it, you can take your services to the 2012 NFL draft.

Theres no way they'll do that and end up getting far less with a cap in place, not to mention a year of not playing. Plus LUCK and a few other nice pieces will be competing for the same slots.

If a guy like Cam Newton goes back into the draft and gets picked 5th or so with a cap in place, he just lost ga-millions by not taking the 25 mil guaranteed I offered.


This offseason will be very interesting, and you can bet your sweetness that the owners are not going to sign a single player until the CBA is worked out.

A new rookie wage scale will be the determinate for the new contract parameters, even if its not in place during this draft.

Ravage!!!
04-19-2011, 03:08 PM
If we opperate under the currnet CBA, then the owner can't simply do that.

WARHORSE
04-19-2011, 07:37 PM
If we opperate under the currnet CBA, then the owner can't simply do that.

Huh?

They sure can.


Current CBA or no current CBA, you dont have to sign your draft picks to a deal.

Lonestar
04-19-2011, 10:02 PM
there is NO CBA, it expired and FWIW there is not even a Union it de-certified.

No contract no one can sign a contract with a team. NO trades can be made of players.
but draft picks are a different story.

here endth the lesson.

rcsodak
04-19-2011, 10:37 PM
If we opperate under the currnet CBA, then the owner can't simply do that.to be clear, there IS no" current CBA". It is a pile of ash.
2010 operated under NO CAP. Meaning altered free agency, and 10% increase in rookie pay.
Along with that came horrific play by teams looking to save money.

You get what you pay for.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
04-19-2011, 11:17 PM
to be clear, there IS no" current CBA". It is a pile of ash.
2010 operated under NO CBA. Meaning no cap, altered free agency, and 10% increase in rookie pay.
Along with that came horrific play by teams looking to save money.

You get what you pay for.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Actually it expired in March after the owners opted out of the final few years of the "CBA". but the rest was correct.

The players thought they would be crapping in tall cotton with no salary cap. Surprise none of the smart owners signed any FA to gang buster contracts.

rcsodak
04-19-2011, 11:29 PM
Actually it expired in March after the owners opted out of the final few years of the "CBA". but the rest was correct.

The players thought they would be crapping in tall cotton with no salary cap. Surprise none of the smart owners signed any FA to gang buster contracts.

Yep...meant NO CAP.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

dogfish
04-20-2011, 08:26 PM
If any team is interested in trading up for the second overall pick in the NFL draft, Broncos Executive V.P. John Elway would like to know about it.

So far, Elway says, he hasn’t heard a peep.

“We’ve had no contact yet on any of the possible trades,” Elway said today. “We’ve had no contact with anybody yet.”

Broncos G.M. Brian Xanders said he thinks that if anyone makes the Broncos a trade offer, it likely won’t happen until draft day.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/20/john-elway-broncos-havent-heard-from-anyone-wanting-to-trade-up/

WARHORSE
04-20-2011, 11:39 PM
Put it this way fellas. IF the owners did not lock out the players, we would be moving forward with the same parameters of the last years deal. Thats the way it works.


The owners didnt opt out this year....they opted out two years ago.



If the judge lifts the lockout, the rules will be the SAME as they were last year.....until the appeals process takes its course.


If the judge lifts the lockout, then the owners will appeal. But moving forward the last years deal would govern until a ruling is heard on the appeal by the owners.


That means, unless a player has accrued six years of experience, they are not a free agent, they are a restricted free agent.

Teams can not only use franchise tags....but also transition tags.


No salary cap.....but no salary floor either.




Players would be able to be traded, and life would resume until the appeals process runs its course.


So....who wants the lockout lifted?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-21-2011, 02:13 AM
Some things from Zobel's website:



http://www.draftheadquarters.com/


That's quite an endorsement, coming from Schefter . . .

-----

I'm not convinced at all.

He's a kid, not a journalist. What are his sources?

He has proclamations on his website promoting himself...go figure.

I am curious to know why Schefter threw him a bone though. Maybe they went to the same frat...or the kid has pic's of Schefty pickin his nose and is holding em as blackmale? :cool:

Shananahan
04-21-2011, 02:29 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/20/john-elway-broncos-havent-heard-from-anyone-wanting-to-trade-up/
So much for pitting the teams against each other.

WARHORSE
04-21-2011, 04:27 AM
I'm not convinced at all.

He's a kid, not a journalist. What are his sources?

He has proclamations on his website promoting himself...go figure.

I am curious to know why Schefter threw him a bone though. Maybe they went to the same frat...or the kid has pic's of Schefty pickin his nose and is holding em as blackmale? :cool:

Hes not a kid. He started when he was 17.......the pic needs to be updated, and according to him, it will be soon.


So much for pitting the teams against each other.


Ok, lets just say right now that you cant believe what they said.....not John......not Xanders.

Cugel
04-21-2011, 11:06 AM
Put it this way fellas. IF the owners did not lock out the players, we would be moving forward with the same parameters of the last years deal. Thats the way it works.


The owners didnt opt out this year....they opted out two years ago.



If the judge lifts the lockout, the rules will be the SAME as they were last year.....until the appeals process takes its course.


If the judge lifts the lockout, then the owners will appeal. But moving forward the last years deal would govern until a ruling is heard on the appeal by the owners.


That means, unless a player has accrued six years of experience, they are not a free agent, they are a restricted free agent.

Teams can not only use franchise tags....but also transition tags.

No salary cap.....but no salary floor either.

Players would be able to be traded, and life would resume until the appeals process runs its course.

So....who wants the lockout lifted?

EVERYBODY wants the lockout lifted except the greed-head owners whining from their yachts! "I'm broke! It's true I have a $1.1 billion franchise, but I don't want to sell any of it! And my revenues are too low! I need more Limos and my wife is eating a hole in my "spreadin' around cash" with her constant shopping for designer dresses and emerald necklaces! Wah! Wah!" :coffee:

TXBRONC
04-21-2011, 11:10 AM
EVERYBODY wants the lockout lifted except the greed-head owners whining from their yachts! "I'm broke! It's true I have a $1.1 billion franchise, but I don't want to sell any of it! And my revenues are too low! I need more Limos and my wife is eating a hole in my "spreadin' around cash" with her constant shopping for designer dresses and emerald necklaces! Wah! Wah!" :coffee:

I think both sides are equally culpable Cug.

rcsodak
04-21-2011, 02:20 PM
If a business realizes its made an error before it loses a large chunk of its profits, its not being greedy. Its called being proactive and smart.
For as much of a dipshit as he is, mercury morris did say 1 thing yesterday in an interview that was profound. When asked who he thought was at fault, he said it all began the moment the owners agreed to a percentage with the players.
I took that as an akin to opening pandora's box.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
04-21-2011, 02:39 PM
So the owners want a fair return on their investment.
If you put a billion into blue chiP government bonds they make moe money tax free than buying a franchise and making very little return on the money.

It is their money that they are sharing by owning a team. Why are they the bad guys.
They could have just left it in the bank and we would have either no team or a crappy one like we did before PAT.

WHich of type alternatives do y'all want. The bungals or bills as a team or Pat that invested in the Broncos.

Let him earn a few bucks for the risk.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
04-21-2011, 02:53 PM
So the owners want a fair return on their investment.
If you put a billion into blue chiP government bonds they make moe money tax free than buying a franchise and making very little return on the money.

It is their money that they are sharing by owning a team. Why are they the bad guys.
They could have just left it in the bank and we would have either no team or a crappy one like we did before PAT.

WHich of type alternatives do y'all want. The bungals or bills as a team or Pat that invested in the Broncos.

Let him earn a few bucks for the risk.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I'll take Pat every day. He's never afraid to spend money, when shown it'd help. Shanny even called him the best owner in the league, after getting fired by the guy, iirc.
The bungles? Lmao. Does any other team scream CHEAP as much as the browns do? They prolly think they're the smartest franchise around, having their coaches be their scouting dept. :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Cugel
04-21-2011, 04:45 PM
I think both sides are equally culpable Cug.

I'd agree IF the players were asking for more money. But they're not. They just want things to remain the same as now. It's the OWNERS who want to change things so bad they blew up the CBA and instituted a lock-out that's endangering the season!

The ONLY way you support the owners at this point is if you're just one of those people who think management is always right, even when they're not. :coffee:

Cugel
04-21-2011, 04:51 PM
So the owners want a fair return on their investment.
If you put a billion into blue chiP government bonds they make moe money tax free than buying a franchise and making very little return on the money.

It is their money that they are sharing by owning a team.

Why are they the bad guys.

They could have just left it in the bank and we would have either no team or a crappy one like we did before PAT.

WHich of type alternatives do y'all want. The bungals or bills as a team or Pat that invested in the Broncos.

Let him earn a few bucks for the risk.[/i][/size]

I'd say that buying a franchise for $78 million and having it increase in value to $1.1 BILLION was a "fair return on investment" even if it didn't earn a PENNY in "revenues." :coffee:

Only a complete GREED-HEAD would be WHINING that "I don't get enough cash" when their investment has gone up over TEN TIMES its initial value!

I've never had an investment like that, and I doubt you have either (unless you're a crack dealer)! It's almost impossible to find a LEGAL investment that increases like that. Maybe if you bought Google on the ground floor or something. :coffee:

If those vicious greed-heads need another yacht, then let them sell some of their damn stock! 10% ownership in the Broncos would be worth what? $100 million? And Pat would still own the controlling interest. HOw much more do those swine need? :coffee:

dogfish
04-21-2011, 05:05 PM
cug, i love when you channel hunter thompson. . .


:heh:

rcsodak
04-21-2011, 05:08 PM
I'd agree IF the players were asking for more money. But they're not. They just want things to remain the same as now. It's the OWNERS who want to change things so bad they blew up the CBA and instituted a lock-out that's endangering the season!

The ONLY way you support the owners at this point is if you're just one of those people who think management is always right, even when they're not. :coffee:
Nice way to bottleneck everybody into a tidy group, cug....though you're wrong.

And saying the players aren't asking for more money, is akin to the owners saying they don't want their franchise's value to increase. :laugh:

Its gonna happen, regardless.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Cugel
04-21-2011, 05:14 PM
Nice way to bottleneck everybody into a tidy group, cug....though you're wrong.

And saying the players aren't asking for more money, is akin to the owners saying they don't want their franchise's value to increase. :laugh:

Its gonna happen, regardless.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums
And so are league revenues going up as well. So what? :coffee:

The point is that it's the OWNERS (not the players) who decided in their Royal Wisdom that the current CBA was not good enough because they needed $2 billion more in "revenue."

The massive and unending increase in value of their franchises, the endless line of other billionaires eager to buy into an NFL franchise is not enough.

They need more "spreading around money" in the form of "revenues." And they're willing to risk the season to get it.

If the players were striking, I'd be chewing them out. They're not. The owners are instituting a lockout.

HENCE the term "vicious greed-heads." I'd say they earned it. :coffee:

TXBRONC
04-21-2011, 06:17 PM
I'd agree IF the players were asking for more money. But they're not. They just want things to remain the same as now. It's the OWNERS who want to change things so bad they blew up the CBA and instituted a lock-out that's endangering the season!

The ONLY way you support the owners at this point is if you're just one of those people who think management is always right, even when they're not. :coffee:

I'm not lawyer nor have I ever played one on television but I do understand that negotiations means give and take. From what I understand the last CBA favored players by giving them 60% of the revenues so of course they don't want to give up that ground. How do you blow up an agreement that has expiration date? Also it was the players that walked away from the negotiation IIRC.

I don't it fair to say that everyone that can see the side of the owners that some how that they think management is always right. Owners were underhanded in trying work out a deal that they would still be paid even if no games were played. They have been antagonistic and they have not been forthcoming showing the books so I don't they are completely innocent.

People who say the it's ONLY the owners that ALL the risk are flat wrong. They take the financial risk to be sure but they not ones putting their health on the line every time a game is played.

Dean
04-24-2011, 05:52 PM
Then again. . .it isn't the owners wanting to do away with the draft, free agency, and the cap. Without these there, IMO, would be no parity in the league.

Agent of Orange
04-24-2011, 06:02 PM
A lot of the owners shoulder a greater burden when it comes to stadium debt than Pat Bowlen. The reason is that its a bill that has been passed on to the people of Denver. The thing is, the owners are the ones who insisted on these stadiums so using that as an issue to throw in the players faces is bogus. Its not like the players have input on what kinds of stadiums are being built, so the players shouldnt have it thrown in their faces.

WARHORSE
04-24-2011, 07:43 PM
I'm not lawyer nor have I ever played one on television but I do understand that negotiations means give and take. From what I understand the last CBA favored players by giving them 60% of the revenues so of course they don't want to give up that ground. How do you blow up an agreement that has expiration date? Also it was the players that walked away from the negotiation IIRC.

I don't it fair to say that everyone that can see the side of the owners that some how that they think management is always right. Owners were underhanded in trying work out a deal that they would still be paid even if no games were played. They have been antagonistic and they have not been forthcoming showing the books so I don't they are completely innocent.

People who say the it's ONLY the owners that ALL the risk are flat wrong. They take the financial risk to be sure but they not ones putting their health on the line every time a game is played.


Antagonistic how?

And as for the health risk, these players LOVE this game and are always talking about how lucky they are to be doing this for a living.

The risk is COMPLETELY their own choice. Nobody makes someone play football.

Any player can at ANY time say, "You know what, even for a million dollars its not worth the risk to play this game, cause I could get hurt."

Thats a completely bogus argument. You dont want to risk it? Dont play.

Go flip burgers for a living and accept your good health with your lowend salary like the rest of America.



The owners in good faith tried to see if they could make it at 60% for the players. Thats why there was an OPT OUT. They opted out, and now it comes back to the table.

The bogus argument that I have to show my books to the employees to validate a paycut is completely a request that is not within the rights of the employees.

Its the so called union thats screwing it all up.

Hey, if you dont like the NFL, then go start your own league.


Im a business owner and when things are good, I bonus my workers, the good ones best. When things are not good, you have to watch your costs. A lot of the time, it has nothing to do with how happy I am with my workers. Its has to do with the economy.


The players dont deserve 60% of the pie. Period. The players today are not going to feel anything.

Take care of the retired guys, but keep the meat of the money where it belongs.......with the owners, so we can take the NFL to greater heights.

TXBRONC
04-25-2011, 11:22 AM
Antagonistic how?

And as for the health risk, these players LOVE this game and are always talking about how lucky they are to be doing this for a living.

The risk is COMPLETELY their own choice. Nobody makes someone play football.

Any player can at ANY time say, "You know what, even for a million dollars its not worth the risk to play this game, cause I could get hurt."

Thats a completely bogus argument. You dont want to risk it? Dont play.

Go flip burgers for a living and accept your good health with your lowend salary like the rest of America.



The owners in good faith tried to see if they could make it at 60% for the players. Thats why there was an OPT OUT. They opted out, and now it comes back to the table.

The bogus argument that I have to show my books to the employees to validate a paycut is completely a request that is not within the rights of the employees.

Its the so called union thats screwing it all up.

Hey, if you dont like the NFL, then go start your own league.


Im a business owner and when things are good, I bonus my workers, the good ones best. When things are not good, you have to watch your costs. A lot of the time, it has nothing to do with how happy I am with my workers. Its has to do with the economy.


The players dont deserve 60% of the pie. Period. The players today are not going to feel anything.

Take care of the retired guys, but keep the meat of the money where it belongs.......with the owners, so we can take the NFL to greater heights.

Are you telling me you didn't hear about how the owner of Jaguars screamed at Peyton Manning when they first started negotiations? That's antagonistic.

Because the players love the game some how their risks are invalid? :confused:

Yep the players know there are risks involved and could walk away at any time. The same holds true for the owners if they don't like the financial risk they can get out any time they so chose.

I don't think the players should 60 percent of the revenues but how the hell does the owners keeping "the meat" take the NFL to greater heights?

The only thing that will take the NFL to greater heights is by having great product. And maybe I'm wrong but I main ingredient is having great players.

My hope is that they can come to an agreement that works for both sides.

Ravage!!!
04-25-2011, 11:43 AM
Wow.. the players want things the way they are..... NO KIDDING. In the meantime, the way "things are" are getting to the point of losing money for the very people that have the most to lose. People don't invest in 800 million dollar franchises to earn nothing.

Yeah..the players want things the way they were, of course they do. They got the BETTER part of the deal last time, and they can't accept the reality that the last deal was TOO good for them. No one likes to give, but lets be truthful here, the players are the ones that are replaceable.

rcsodak
04-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Are you telling me you didn't hear about how the owner of Jaguars screamed at Peyton Manning when they first started negotiations? That's antagonistic.

Because the players love the game some how their risks are invalid? :confused:

Yep the players know there are risks involved and could walk away at any time. The same holds true for the owners if they don't like the financial risk they can get out any time they so chose.

I don't think the players should 60 percent of the revenues but how the hell does the owners keeping "the meat" take the NFL to greater heights?

The only thing that will take the NFL to greater heights is by having great product. And maybe I'm wrong but I main ingredient is having great players.

My hope is that they can come to an agreement that works for both sides.

Not sure how paying the players more money actually makes them better, Tx.
If a player thinks he can make more elsewhere, power to them.
Honestly, would PManning be less of a player at$ 8M/yr vs his current salary.
But we know the probability of that, I think.

TXBRONC
04-25-2011, 12:13 PM
Not sure how paying the players more money actually makes them better, Tx.
If a player thinks he can make more elsewhere, power to them.
Honestly, would PManning be less of a player at$ 8M/yr vs his current salary.
But we know the probability of that, I think.

Where you get that? I didn't say giving a player more money will make them player better. If you'll look again you will see that I said it takes great player to take the League to new heights. Compensation is a different issue.

I also said that the players shouldn't be getting 60% of the revenues and that I hope they can to deal that both sides can feel good about.