PDA

View Full Version : Reworked deal relief to Stokley, Scheffler on trade block



red98
03-04-2009, 03:13 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11830461


Even before they acquired Jabar Gaffney and signed David Anderson to an offer sheet, and before they knew Brandon Marshall would get into trouble, the Broncos decided to bring back veteran slot receiver Brandon Stokley.

Stokley's return was ensured Feb. 27, in the hours before the opening of NFL free agency, when the Broncos and Stokley agreed to roll his $500,000 unguaranteed roster bonus into his 2009 salary. Then they agreed to guarantee $560,000 of his $1.41 million salary for this season. So Stokley is back, despite the crowd at receiver.

"When you bring a new coach in, you just never know," Stokley said. "I wasn't sure until I signed that new contract that I was going to be here for another year."

Most teams carry four or five receivers on their game-day, 45-man roster. The Broncos have four in Marshall, Eddie Royal, Gaffney and Stokley. Anderson would make it five if Houston doesn't match the three-year, $4.5 million offer he signed with the Broncos as a restricted free agent.

Simms passing through.

The Broncos will visit today with veteran quarterback Chris Simms. If a deal can be reached, Simms, 28, would replace Patrick Ramsey as Jay Cutler's backup.

Scheffler on trade block.

The Broncos have been shopping Tony Scheffler. Scheffler, 26, is considered one of the NFL's best receivers at tight end — his average of 16.1 yards per catch led all players at his position with at least 40 receptions last year.

However, there is concern Scheffler might not fit in the New England offensive system that new coach Josh McDaniels has brought with him to Denver.

New England's offense usually lines up with three wide receivers and one tight end. The Broncos already have the prototype New England-style tight end in Daniel Graham, who played for the Patriots from 2002-06. Graham left New England for free agency in part because the Pats rarely use the tight end in their passing game.

The most logical destinations for Scheffler are teams that operate the West Coast offense, which often uses a second tight end in the game. The Philadelphia Eagles have the most prominent West Coast offense.

dogfish
03-04-2009, 03:23 AM
if doogie can't find a use for a dynamic weapon like chef in his precious ****ing system, maybe it's time to make a new system. . . where's all that crap we heard about the "amoeba" offense that changes gameplans every week and doesn't operate on rigid principles? i guess that was all hot air. . . :coffee:

red98
03-04-2009, 03:30 AM
if doogie can't find a use for a dynamic weapon like chef in his precious ****ing system, maybe it's time to make a new system. . . where's all that crap we heard about the "amoeba" offense that changes gameplans every week and doesn't operate on rigid principles? i guess that was all hot air. . . :coffee:

He was a 2nd rd pick and he's a playmaker when healthy. I'll reserve judgement 'til we see what he brings in a trade.(if it happens)



Good to see the slot-machine back though. :D

tomjonesrocks
03-04-2009, 04:31 AM
Good to hear Stokley will be back.

Scheffler was good for some nice gains last year. Guy is always getting nicked up and therefore is totally unreliable though. As a result, of the top offensive playmakers, Sheffler seems the most expendable to me. Better get someone who really contributes in return though because the guy has value.

Probably will infuriate Cutler even more though, which seems a bad idea at a time when you're trying to smooth things over with the guy.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 04:34 AM
Good to hear Stokley will be back.

Scheffler was good for some nice gains last year. Guy is always getting nicked up and therefore is totally unreliable though. As a result, of the top offensive playmakers, Sheffler seems the most expendable to me. Better get someone who really contributes in return though because the guy has value.

Probably will infuriate Cutler even more though, which seems a bad idea at a time when you're trying to smooth things over with the guy.


Jay needs to grow a pair of huevos..

move from pampers to jockey shorts..

fcspikeit
03-04-2009, 04:43 AM
if doogie can't find a use for a dynamic weapon like chef in his precious ****ing system, maybe it's time to make a new system. . . where's all that crap we heard about the "amoeba" offense that changes gameplans every week and doesn't operate on rigid principles? i guess that was all hot air. . . :coffee:

I agree to a point dog, however, if we're not going to be using 2 TE sets, do we really need 2 starting caliber TE's on the roster? I personally would rather have Sheff but Graham might fit better then him? Even if we could work a plan that used minimal 2 TE sets. Sheff or Graham might be worth more to us in trade for what we would get out of having both of them?

So I guess it would depend on what we could get out of him.. IMO, anything less then a 3rd wouldn't be enough.

ikillz0mbies
03-04-2009, 05:20 AM
I really wouldn't mind Scheffler being traded. He's too much of an injury risk. Although, when healthy he is one of the top receiving TE's.

Daniel Graham is more likely to stick for a couple of reasons. One, he is familiar with the system Josh McDaniels will implement. Two, he is one of the better blocking TE's in the league. Blocking is Scheffler's biggest weakness, aside from being frail. And third, Graham showed down the stretch last season that he can be a very reliable receiver. If Scheffler were to be kept, I doubt he sees the field much. With WR's signed this off-season and the spread offense McDaniels would use, Scheffler is pretty much squeezed out. Might as well trade him while he has some value.

Now the only thing I'm worried about if Scheffler were to be traded is the depth at TE. I'd rather keep Scheffler because of the depth.

fcspikeit
03-04-2009, 05:27 AM
I really wouldn't mind Scheffler being traded. He's too much of an injury risk. Although, when healthy he is one of the top receiving TE's.

Daniel Graham is more likely to stick for a couple of reasons. One, he is familiar with the system Josh McDaniels will implement. Two, he is one of the better blocking TE's in the league. Blocking is Scheffler's biggest weakness, aside from being frail. And third, Graham showed down the stretch last season that he can be a very reliable receiver. If Scheffler were to be kept, I doubt he sees the field much. With WR's signed this off-season and the spread offense McDaniels would use, Scheffler is pretty much squeezed out. Might as well trade him while he has some value.

Now the only thing I'm worried about if Scheffler were to be traded is the depth at TE. I'd rather keep Scheffler because of the depth.

Yeah if we trade Sheff we will have to add someone for depth.. Maybe we will use the pick we get out of him to draft a TE? LOL

When you think of it that way, it doesn't make much sense. We would be lucky to even get a TE who is as good as Sheffler, esp in the 3rd or 4th round.. Assuming we could even get a 3rd or 4th round pick for him.

elsid13
03-04-2009, 05:42 AM
For self proclaimed offense genius, McKidd seem pretty rigid and inflexible to adopting the system to his players.

What I don't get that two years ago the base of the Pats offense was 2 TE set. And even though I am not offense coordinator I can a number of ways that having Scheffer would create a number of mismatches that still follow the underlying system.

elsid13
03-04-2009, 05:48 AM
Yeah if we trade Sheff we will have to add someone for depth.. Maybe we will use the pick we get out of him to draft a TE? LOL

When you think of it that way, it doesn't make much sense. We would be lucky to even get a TE who is as good as Sheffler, esp in the 3rd or 4th round.. Assuming we could even get a 3rd or 4th round pick for him.

The way the FO is operating it would take a TE in the 1st. Heck there were reports that the Denver scouts were all over the TE from OKST at the Senior Bowl.

fcspikeit
03-04-2009, 07:02 AM
The way the FO is operating it would take a TE in the 1st. Heck there were reports that the Denver scouts were all over the TE from OKST at the Senior Bowl.

Yeah Blue Run said Branden Pedagrew(sp?) was high on our draft board.

I like Shawne Nelson too but he is more of a receiving TE. IMO I would just as soon have Sheffler then him.. I wonder if he would be on the block if he wasn't always hurt?

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 07:30 AM
For self proclaimed offense genius, McKidd seem pretty rigid and inflexible to adopting the system to his players.




First of all, can you show me a quote where McD called himself an offensive genius? I haven't seen one.

The coaching staff wants to bring in tough, physical, smart, hard-nosed players. He obviously thinks Scheff doesn't fit that mold. Whether that's because of his injury history, inability to block well, attitude, or just what he saw on the game film, we don't know. Once the staff gets the type of players they want in here, they will adopt the scheme to the players.

If it were the other way around, we'd be watching guys like Webster and Winborn jump around like idiots every time they stopped the other team for a 5 yard gain again, and see no improvement this season.

fcspikeit
03-04-2009, 07:39 AM
First of all, can you show me a quote where McD called himself an offensive genius? I haven't seen one.

The coaching staff wants to bring in tough, physical, smart, hard-nosed players. He obviously thinks Scheff doesn't fit that mold. Whether that's because of his injury history, inability to block well, attitude, or just what he saw on the game film, we don't know. Once the staff gets the type of players they want in here, they will adopt the scheme to the players.

If it were the other way around, we'd be watching guys like Webster and Winborn jump around like idiots every time they stopped the other team for a 5 yard gain again, and see no improvement this season.

Well IMO Sheffler is a better TE then Webster was LB but that isn't saying much of anything.. :laugh:

As far as I know, no one is even interested in our FA except Niko, he got signed by the Bucs..

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 07:43 AM
Well IMO Sheffler is a better TE then Webster was LB but that isn't saying much of anything.. :laugh:

As far as I know, no one is even interested in our FA except Niko, he got signed by the Bucs..

True, and it says a lot about just how depleted our talent base was last season. Our starters that got cut haven't even been brought in for interviews with other teams as far as I've heard. (Other than Niko). It's sad that we are signing 2nd and 3rd tier FA's and improving the team with each one.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 07:46 AM
First of all, can you show me a quote where McD called himself an offensive genius? I haven't seen one.

The coaching staff wants to bring in tough, physical, smart, hard-nosed players. He obviously thinks Scheff doesn't fit that mold. Whether that's because of his injury history, inability to block well, attitude, or just what he saw on the game film, we don't know. Once the staff gets the type of players they want in here, they will adopt the scheme to the players.

If it were the other way around, we'd be watching guys like Webster and Winborn jump around like idiots every time they stopped the other team for a 5 yard gain again, and see no improvement this season.

You've got to be able to see the difference between Scheffler and Webster. Webster can't produce whatever system he's in, Scheffler can.

What you're describing is just playing word games, and makes statements like adapting to the players meaningless. I mean really we would laugh at anyone who said we adapt to the players who fit our system. There no difference between saying that and saying we bring in players who fit our system.

At the same time if there's anything this whole Cutler situation should have taught us is that there's a lot of different ideas behind what it means to "shop" a player.

For instance I would be disappointed if they were just trying to get rid of Scheffler, but if they were trying to use him to spring Rogers from Cleveland I would be okay with that.

Tned
03-04-2009, 08:01 AM
He was a 2nd rd pick and he's a playmaker when healthy. I'll reserve judgement 'til we see what he brings in a trade.(if it happens)



Good to see the slot-machine back though. :D

Winslow brought a 2nd and future 5th. While Winslow has had some injury and other problems, I can't imagine Scheff bringing more, and likely not as much, as Winslow. So, we are probably looking at something like a single pick in the 3-6 range. I don't know about this.

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 08:02 AM
You've got to be able to see the difference between Scheffler and Webster. Webster can't produce whatever system he's in, Scheffler can.

What you're describing is just playing word games, and makes statements like adapting to the players meaningless. I mean really we would laugh at anyone who said we adapt to the players who fit our system. There no difference between saying that and saying we bring in players who fit our system.

.


Yes, I see the difference between Webster and Scheffler. It was an exagerrated analogy to make a point. You really don't know if they want to trade Scheffler because he doesn't fit well as a TE, because he can't keep himself on the field, or for any other reason. Only the coaching staff does.

As far as adapting to the players that fit the system, that's what good teams do. They bring in the players that most closely resemble the ideal player at that position. Teams know that they aren't going to get a perfect fit every time though, so yes, they do adapt to that player that they brought in to fit that system.

Example: Both Dawkins and Polamalu fit Denver's defensive system. I'm sure Denver would have went after Polamalu if he was a free agent and they could have gotten him at the right price. Do you really think that they would play them both exactly the same way? No. Denver would adapt to whichever player it was, even though they both fit the system.


There's no word games here, just common sense.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 08:18 AM
Yes, I see the difference between Webster and Scheffler. It was an exagerrated analogy to make a point. You really don't know if they want to trade Scheffler because he doesn't fit well as a TE, because he can't keep himself on the field, or for any other reason. Only the coaching staff does.

As far as adapting to the players that fit the system, that's what good teams do. They bring in the players that most closely resemble the ideal player at that position. Teams know that they aren't going to get a perfect fit every time though, so yes, they do adapt to that player that they brought in to fit that system.

Example: Both Dawkins and Polamalu fit Denver's defensive system. I'm sure Denver would have went after Polamalu if he was a free agent and they could have gotten him at the right price. Do you really think that they would play them both exactly the same way? No. Denver would adapt to whichever player it was, even though they both fit the system.


There's no word games here, just common sense.

First you cut off my point about Scheffler and then just repeated what I said which is annoying.

Second I get your point about Dawkins and Polamalu that wouldn't be word games. However we are talking about a specific situation here with Scheffler. If they can't find a place for Scheffler who can play, then they aren't really adapting their system and it's just word games.

red98
03-04-2009, 08:21 AM
Winslow brought a 2nd and future 5th. While Winslow has had some injury and other problems, I can't imagine Scheff bringing more, and likely not as much, as Winslow. So, we are probably looking at something like a single pick in the 3-6 range. I don't know about this.

Yeah it might be tough to get a 2nd or better for him. As others have mentioned he might be part of a package to get a player from some team.

I'd like to hold onto him if possible, but if he's part of a trade that helps us land a monster NT or LB in the draft, I'd be cool with that.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 08:24 AM
I think were taking the definition of adapting a system a little too far. You have to adapt your system when changing from Moss and Welker to Marshall and Royal. When going from Maroney and Faulk to Torian and Hillis.

I guess I'd have a problem with some things if his offense wasnt proven to work very successfully

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 08:26 AM
[QUOTE=Fan in Exile;574789]First you cut off my point about Scheffler and then just repeated what I said which is annoying.

If you're annoyed, then feel free to move on and ignore my post. Maybe the FO doesn't think as highly of Scheffler as you do. Maybe they just feel like he isn't a good fit for this team, for whatever reason. If he's not a good fit, then why adjust to accomodate him? Trade him, get something in return, and find a better fit.

fcspikeit
03-04-2009, 08:29 AM
True, and it says a lot about just how depleted our talent base was last season. Our starters that got cut haven't even been brought in for interviews with other teams as far as I've heard. (Other than Niko). It's sad that we are signing 2nd and 3rd tier FA's and improving the team with each one.

I agree, some guys don't bring enough to the table to even worry about trying to work into the game plan..

IMO When healthy Sheff does. The only reason I would ever agree to trading him is because we have Graham and a boatload of WR's we already have to work into the game plan... If Hillis gets a chance to catch balls that is another guy you have to work in. If we're not going to use both TE's we might as well trade 1 and get a pick we can use or another player at a position of need

My question is why would we use a blocking TE more then a receiving one in the spread offense? I would bet the fact he is always hurt has something to do with it.

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 08:36 AM
I'm not sure Spike. There is always the theory that coach McD is going to make Hillis into an Hback. His hands are as good as Scheffler's if not better, and he's a much better blocker.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 08:40 AM
I agree, some guys don't bring enough to the table to even worry about trying to work into the game plan..

IMO When healthy Sheff does. The only reason I would ever agree to trading him is because we have Graham and a boatload of WR's we already have to work into the game plan... If Hillis gets a chance to catch balls that is another guy you have to work in. If we're not going to use both TE's we might as well trade 1 and get a pick we can use or another player at a position of need

My question is why would we use a blocking TE more then a receiving one in the spread offense? I would bet the fact he is always hurt has something to do with it.

Because it uses alot of 3 and 4 receiver sets and having an extra guy on the line that can actually keep defenders off the QB's ass is usually a good idea.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 08:56 AM
If you're annoyed, then feel free to move on and ignore my post. Maybe the FO doesn't think as highly of Scheffler as you do. Maybe they just feel like he isn't a good fit for this team, for whatever reason. If he's not a good fit, then why adjust to accomodate him? Trade him, get something in return, and find a better fit.

Why is it on the internet people always try to cover their own screw ups by telling the other person to move on?

The answer to why adjust to accommodate him is because he has produced on the field, and that's not an easy thing to do. More than that it's a theoretical question about the actual philosophy of our new coach. If they are unwilling to adapt to Scheffler that means that they don't have a truly flexible amoeba like system that had been talked about.

This is a little concerning because the basis of the patriots dynasty has always been their ability to be flexible and to adapt to the players that they have. For instance when they had Graham and Watson they were playing two TEs with Moss, Welker and Gaffney they were going three wide. So if McDaniels is being inflexible then we are dealing with an unknown and have to wonder about what he's really bringing to town.

More than that we saw what happened when Bates tried to force a system on to players. He brought in guys who fit his system but couldn't play anymore and crushed the ability of guys who could play in a different system. I don't want that to happen to our offense, which wasn't broken.

Let me repeat there's a lot we don't know about what's going on. I would only be concerned if at sometime in the future we learned that Scheff was being shopped because McDaniels couldn't figure out how to use him on the field.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 09:03 AM
Youa have all convinced me. Josh McDaniels is a complete hack that has no idea of how to run an offense and any decision he makes based on his years of experience in coaching is pathetic compared to what we all know here.

BeefStew25
03-04-2009, 09:07 AM
Youa have all convinced me. Josh McDaniels is a complete hack that has no idea of how to run an offense and any decision he makes based on his years of experience in coaching is pathetic compared to what we all know here.

Fly off the handle.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 09:09 AM
Fly off the handle.

Not yet...gotta wait for the right moment.

It's all about the timing

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 09:09 AM
Why is it on the internet people always try to cover their own screw ups by telling the other person to move on?



I told you to move on because you were whining about being annoyed. That's the great thing about forums. You can just put someone on ignore and choose not to be, or just not read thier posts. Obviously, you'd rather read them and whine.

BeefStew25
03-04-2009, 09:12 AM
Not yet...gotta wait for the right moment.

It's all about the timing

Coach don't take the wind out of my sails. I am trying to egg you on and you are making it hard.

gobroncsnv
03-04-2009, 09:16 AM
For instance I would be disappointed if they were just trying to get rid of Scheffler, but if they were trying to use him to spring Rogers from Cleveland I would be okay with that.

Kind of almost makes sense when you see that the Browns just dispatched Winslow... Seems they will be looking for a receiving tight end. Just something about Rogers, though... will he turn into 350 lbs. of jello once he puts on the blue and orange? We've seen alot of others do that.

Rick
03-04-2009, 09:19 AM
I would be a little worried about Rogers.

I would probably do a Shef/Rogers trade but i would be worried.

He reminds me a little of Walker. You can be having a solid team thats winning games but if he isn't the "man" making all the stats will he be happy.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 09:43 AM
I told you to move on because you were whining about being annoyed. That's the great thing about forums. You can just put someone on ignore and choose not to be, or just not read thier posts. Obviously, you'd rather read them and whine.

There was no whining I just pointed out that your actions were annoying you can either learn from that, or try to put the blame on me. From your posts it's pretty clear what you're going to do, so there really is no point in talking with you about it anymore.

omac
03-04-2009, 10:21 AM
Jay needs to grow a pair of huevos..

move from pampers to jockey shorts..

Jay's playing the toughest position in the NFL, taking hits, making hits, and putting the offense on his shoulders. Tough to find a tougher, braver, fearless QB.

Enough already. :coffee:

Foochacho
03-04-2009, 10:29 AM
So, if McDaniels doesn't like a good recieving tight end where does this put Hillis?

I was hoping to see Hillis used in tight end sets and out of the back field. He better use Hillis more than Shanahan did.

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 10:37 AM
More evidence of imbecility from McDaniels. Pfaugh - the guy disgusts me - and he was the guy I wanted hired.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 10:38 AM
Go ahead and trade the bum and bring back my boy Mustard

Northman
03-04-2009, 10:39 AM
I agree to a point dog, however, if we're not going to be using 2 TE sets, do we really need 2 starting caliber TE's on the roster? I personally would rather have Sheff but Graham might fit better then him? Even if we could work a plan that used minimal 2 TE sets. Sheff or Graham might be worth more to us in trade for what we would get out of having both of them?

So I guess it would depend on what we could get out of him.. IMO, anything less then a 3rd wouldn't be enough.

The only problem is Sheff actually is more of a playmaker than Graham is. Obviously Sheff has a health issue that hangs over his head but there's no question that in the open field he trumps Graham. But, Graham is a former Pat boy so its obvious where McD's loyality lies and Graham is also a better blocker than Sheff. But i still think we need a true downfield threat at that position so i hope that if we trade Sheff we draft a guy like Coffman or Nelson that we can utilize in that type of package.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 10:40 AM
More evidence of imbecility from McDaniels. Pfaugh - the guy disgusts me - and he was the guy I wanted hired.

Trading a TE that cant block, cant stay healthy and wont be used for something you CAN use is imbecility?

honz
03-04-2009, 10:43 AM
I love Scheff, but he is oft injured and he is a below average blocker for the TE position. It comes as no surprise to me that he is being shopped.

honz
03-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Trading a TE that cant block, cant stay healthy and wont be used for something you CAN use is imbecility?
Exactly. I love the guy, but it's not like he is a once in a decade player or something. He's just a big WR playing TE.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 10:48 AM
The only problem is Sheff actually is more of a playmaker than Graham is. Obviously Sheff has a health issue that hangs over his head but there's no question that in the open field he trumps Graham. But, Graham is a former Pat boy so its obvious where McD's loyality lies and Graham is also a better blocker than Sheff. But i still think we need a true downfield threat at that position so i hope that if we trade Sheff we draft a guy like Coffman or Nelson that we can utilize in that type of package.

Problem is...a TE just doesnt see too many passes in a spread offense. Too many 3 and 4 receiver sets.

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 10:52 AM
When he is to my mind the best pure pass receiving TE in the NFL then yes. The injury thing is badly overstated, and he provides an almost unique weapon for an offensive coach with a shred of imagination.

I think this has to do with trying to prove that Shanny and the Goodmans weren't as smart as advertised, rather than being a move good for the team.

pnbronco
03-04-2009, 11:00 AM
I so glad about Stokley. Oh the other hand I think it's a big mistake to let go of Scheff, yes he has had some heath problem, so did most of the team. He is a play maker, a good friend to Jay, has helped trying to keep Brandon M in line and just a solid anchor behind the scenes.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:02 AM
When he is to my mind the best pure pass receiving TE in the NFL then yes. The injury thing is badly overstated, and he provides an almost unique weapon for an offensive coach with a shred of imagination.

I think this has to do with trying to prove that Shanny and the Goodmans weren't as smart as advertised, rather than being a move good for the team.

No doubt McD has to make his mark, but I doubt it happens by simply proving Shanny was wrong. Calling Sheff the "best pure receiving TE in the NFL" is a bold statement, but I'll never doubt his abilities.

But keep in mind this is a spread offense and as good as Sheff may or may not be...I prefer to see the ball in the hands of my current WR's than his.

Northman
03-04-2009, 11:03 AM
I so glad about Stokley. Oh the other hand I think it's a big mistake to let go of Scheff, yes he has had some heath problem, so did most of the team. He is a play maker, a good friend to Jay, has helped trying to keep Brandon M in line and just a solid anchor behind the scenes.


I wouldnt be too shocked if Marshall's days are done here.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:07 AM
I wouldnt be too shocked if Marshall's days are done here.

It's too easy to make an argument for it and against it. I think anyone can agree that we all love his skills, but if he is simply one of those guys that just cant seem to grow up...something has to be done in the interest of the team.

I joked with a friend of mine the other day that is a Cowboys fan, but also a generally unbias and intelligent sports fan, and told him I'd trade him Marshall for a 3rd round pick and he declined.

I think teams and fans are just getting tired of these antics.

Ziggy
03-04-2009, 11:19 AM
Funny how when a couple of us threw the idea of trading Marshall around in January, the torches and hanging ropes nearly came out. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been great to have sold high on Marshall and gotten maximum return. Now his value is declining by the day. He may be traded, but with the off field isssues, it won't be for near as much as it would have been in January.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:21 AM
Funny how when a couple of us threw the idea of trading Marshall around in January, the torches and hanging ropes nearly came out. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been great to have sold high on Marshall and gotten maximum return. Now his value is declining by the day. He may be traded, but with the off field isssues, it won't be for near as much as it would have been in January.

I doubt he'll be traded soon. There has been too much turnover and turmoil right now for something like that to happen right away.

Northman
03-04-2009, 11:26 AM
Funny how when a couple of us threw the idea of trading Marshall around in January, the torches and hanging ropes nearly came out. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been great to have sold high on Marshall and gotten maximum return. Now his value is declining by the day. He may be traded, but with the off field isssues, it won't be for near as much as it would have been in January.

Ill be fair, i probably gave you guys some grief over it. Mainly because i think anyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves. I admit, his talent and play is exciting but his constant disregard for staying out of trouble is annoying and detrimental to the team and the chemistry there within. But im willing to bet there's still someone out there willing to give up some good stuff there because the potential is still there.

NightTrainLayne
03-04-2009, 11:26 AM
Nobody's moved Scheff yet. If the price is right then do it. Nobody is saying that McDaniels is going to just package him up with a bow and give him away. Only McD and Xman know what they want in return for him.

Just like all the Cutler speculation. When it was being reported it was pretty much an even swap everyone knew that was ridiculous. When it comes out that we'd get two firsts as well everyone pretty well agrees that you at least have to think it over.

Maybe McD doesn't get an offer he likes and Scheff stays here. He's not gone yet.

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Funny how when a couple of us threw the idea of trading Marshall around in January, the torches and hanging ropes nearly came out. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been great to have sold high on Marshall and gotten maximum return. Now his value is declining by the day. He may be traded, but with the off field isssues, it won't be for near as much as it would have been in January.

Trading Marshall is a whole nother animal than trading Scheffler. Marshall would have at that time fetched a lot more and I think would have been more easily replaced (Good WR's aren't as rare as top notch pass catching TE's IMO - what can I say, I am extremely biased in favor of pass catching TE's :D)

Now its almost pointless to trade him, and I guess we might as well keep him.

Northman
03-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Nobody's moved Scheff yet. If the price is right then do it. Nobody is saying that McDaniels is going to just package him up with a bow and give him away. Only McD and Xman know what they want in return for him.

Just like all the Cutler speculation. When it was being reported it was pretty much an even swap everyone knew that was ridiculous. When it comes out that we'd get two firsts as well everyone pretty well agrees that you at least have to think it over.

Maybe McD doesn't get an offer he likes and Scheff stays here. He's not gone yet.


Personally, i never thought it was an even swap.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Ill be fair, i probably gave you guys some grief over it. Mainly because i think anyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves. I admit, his talent and play is exciting but his constant disregard for staying out of trouble is annoying and detrimental to the team and the chemistry there within. But im willing to bet there's still someone out there willing to give up some good stuff there because the potential is still there.

There is ALWAYS a team that has the mentality of "we can change him". Usually it's Dallas

Northman
03-04-2009, 11:28 AM
There is ALWAYS a team that has the mentality of "we can change him". Usually it's Dallas

Or Wash. Usually Snyder is good for one snookering a year. :lol:

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 11:29 AM
There is ALWAYS a team that has the mentality of "we can change him". Usually it's Dallas

Dan Snyder falls for that one too. He tries to build that team like a 14 year old with Tops Football cards.

NightTrainLayne
03-04-2009, 11:32 AM
Personally, i never thought it was an even swap.

Me either. I couldn't fathom that. But the point is the same. We don't know what they are looking for in return.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:32 AM
I dont doubt Snyder would take him. I just figure that Jones simply CANNOT live without his little soap opera circus and I'm sure he'd jump all over a chance for Marshall...especially if they cut TO. I mean...with no PacMan and no TO, all he has left is the Romo/Simpson debacle

Shazam!
03-04-2009, 11:49 AM
Scheff has all the ability in the world. I always thought of him higher than even Shockey because of his big mouth. He's always hurt though and it affects the O. I hope they deal him and get a good pick.

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 11:51 AM
I dont doubt Snyder would take him. I just figure that Jones simply CANNOT live without his little soap opera circus and I'm sure he'd jump all over a chance for Marshall...especially if they cut TO. I mean...with no PacMan and no TO, all he has left is the Romo/Simpson debacle

I'm not sure there is enough malice in Marshall to really fill TO and Pacmans shoes. He is just a big dumb kid without a lick of sense or of self preservation. TO is mentally unhinged, and I think there is some real evil at work in Pacman.

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 11:53 AM
Scheff has all the ability in the world. I always thought of him higher than even Shockey because of his big mouth. He's always hurt though and it affects the O. I hope they deal him and get a good pick.

Scheffler> Shockey. Scheff actually catches balls, doesn't have a crap attitude, and is more durable (yep, I said it). No comparison.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 11:54 AM
Scheffler> Shockey. Scheff actually catches balls, doesn't have a crap attitude, and is more durable (yep, I said it). No comparison.

By that rationale 50% of the TE's in the NFL are better than Shockey. Still doesnt make Sheffler invaluable

Dreadnought
03-04-2009, 11:58 AM
By that rationale 50% of the TE's in the NFL are better than Shockey. Still doesnt make Sheffler invaluable

We'll have to disagree on that second part. As for the first? I think Shockey is an overrated stiff, so the 50% may be generous to him.

CoachChaz
03-04-2009, 12:04 PM
We'll have to disagree on that second part. As for the first? I think Shockey is an overrated stiff, so the 50% may be generous to him.

Fair enough. I like Sheff as much as anyone, but I love the Broncos more. If he or anyone else just doesnt fit and they can be dealt for someone that can...I'm all for it

dogfish
03-04-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm not sure there is enough malice in Marshall to really fill TO and Pacmans shoes. He is just a big dumb kid without a lick of sense or of self preservation. TO is mentally unhinged, and I think there is some real evil at work in Pacman.

brandon is like a big-ass puppy, hyper as hell and incapable of doing anything without stumbling over his own paws, which are still three sizes too big for the rest of him. . .

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Trade BMarsh are you shitting me. Can you imagine the temper tantrum Cutler would throw :lol:

Foochacho
03-04-2009, 12:20 PM
They've finally figured out how to deal with Cutler it involves a blanket and a bottle. As long as we have that and his favorite episode of blues clues we can do whatever we want.

claymore
03-04-2009, 12:21 PM
Trade BMarsh are you shitting me. Can you imagine the temper tantrum Cutler would throw :lol:

Actually, I dont think Cutler could really argue that. Marshall has been a child since he has been here.

Foochacho
03-04-2009, 12:23 PM
little kids like to beat up on girls too. So he is a child in alot of ways.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 12:36 PM
First of all, can you show me a quote where McD called himself an offensive genius? I haven't seen one.

The coaching staff wants to bring in tough, physical, smart, hard-nosed players. He obviously thinks Scheff doesn't fit that mold. Whether that's because of his injury history, inability to block well, attitude, or just what he saw on the game film, we don't know. Once the staff gets the type of players they want in here, they will adopt the scheme to the players.

If it were the other way around, we'd be watching guys like Webster and Winborn jump around like idiots every time they stopped the other team for a 5 yard gain again, and see no improvement this season.

Great post..

I wonder about all the Mc Kid haters would have had to say when mikey came to town and made changes in personnel.. Afterall he was nothing but a failed Ex HC and OC for SFO where Walsh and Company got all of the props..

Do no one else see the similarity's in a OC coming from a proven system being brought in the fix the problems we had.. And frankly Phillips did not leave the place it total disarray like mikey did on Defense..

Both of the OCs working under geniuses prior to coming here brining in some seasoned vets to patch the holes.. Folks that will fit into their system..

I suspect many are so mentally tied to mikey they may never accept the changes necessary to make it work..

As for Scheffler good TE that can stretch the field oft injured and totally ineffective as a LOS blocker.. Much in the same mold as PUTZ that so many wanted to dump a few years ago.. Hmmmmmmmm

Northman
03-04-2009, 12:39 PM
Great post..

I wonder about all the Mc Kid haters would have had to say when mikey came to town and made changes in personnel.. Afterall he was nothing but a failed Ex HC and OC for SFO where Walsh and Company got all of the props..

Do no one else see the similarity's in a OC coming from a proven system being brought in the fix the problems we had.. And frankly Phillips did not leave the place it total disarray like mikey did on Defense..

Both of the OCs working under geniuses prior to coming here brining in some seasoned vets to patch the holes.. Folks that will fit into their system..

I suspect many are so mentally tied to mikey they may never accept the changes necessary to make it work..

As for Scheffler good TE that can stretch the field oft injured and totally ineffective as a LOS blocker.. Much in the same mold as PUTZ that so many wanted to dump a few years ago.. Hmmmmmmmm

I actually really like Putz. I was pissed at that move.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 01:22 PM
First you cut off my point about Scheffler and then just repeated what I said which is annoying.

Second I get your point about Dawkins and Polamalu that wouldn't be word games. However we are talking about a specific situation here with Scheffler. If they can't find a place for Scheffler who can play, then they aren't really adapting their system and it's just word games.

If he can't block at TE why would you try to adapt the Game plan to someone that will not see the field.. mikey is no longer in DEN the WCO/ZBS scheme is dead..

TEs primarily BLOCK in the NE scheme..

Having non blocking TE is taking a roster spot..

If they can get a ham sandwich for him in trade take it or Best Offer...

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 01:24 PM
I actually really like Putz. I was pissed at that move.

Putz was Jakes Eddie Mac the timex that takes a licking and keeps on ticking.. Go over the middle and make the consistent catch.. Almost always for a first down..

Northman
03-04-2009, 01:33 PM
Putz was Jakes Eddie Mac the timex that takes a licking and keeps on ticking.. Go over the middle and make the consistent catch.. Almost always for a first down..

I was getting ready to say that. :lol:

I could never understand that move because whenever Jake could get down the field it was because of Putz and then Shanny went and cut him. Wait a minute......that could verify a conspiracy against Jake..........Nah!!!! Im not getting sucked into that! :lol:

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 01:41 PM
I was getting ready to say that. :lol:

I could never understand that move because whenever Jake could get down the field it was because of Putz and then Shanny went and cut him. Wait a minute......that could verify a conspiracy against Jake..........Nah!!!! Im not getting sucked into that! :lol:

I understand why PUTZ was cut is was salary related..After screwing the pooch with a stupid contract and getting sucked into it by the Jets he had to make it right by cutting him..

PUTZ was a good TE that was a God send to his QB on third down, but not a world beater.. Certainly not worth his contract..

Northman
03-04-2009, 01:43 PM
I understand why PUTZ was cut is was salary related..After screwing the pooch with a stupid contract and getting sucked into it by the Jets he had to make it right by cutting him..

PUTZ was a good TE that was a God send to his QB on third down, but not a world beater.. Certainly not worth his contract..

At the time though i would of liked to have kept him. I dont think it really helped much to cut him at that time. IMO

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 01:45 PM
At the time though i would of liked to have kept him. I don't think it really helped much to cut him at that time. IMO

mikey was just bowing to the demands of the forum members that hated him..:laugh::laugh:

at least that makes some sense.. but when did GMikey evermake sense?

Northman
03-04-2009, 01:48 PM
mikey was just bowing to the demands of the forum members that hated him..:laugh::laugh:

At least that makes some sense.. But when did gmikey evermake sense?

1996-2000.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 01:53 PM
I know the tony trade is interesting and debatable but dont underestimate the importance of the Slot machine resigning.

Whoops never mind it was just a restructuring I guess.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 02:02 PM
If he can't block at TE why would you try to adapt the Game plan to someone that will not see the field.. mikey is no longer in DEN the WCO/ZBS scheme is dead..

TEs primarily BLOCK in the NE scheme..

Having non blocking TE is taking a roster spot..

If they can get a ham sandwich for him in trade take it or Best Offer...

If you weren't so blinded by your hatred for a guy who's gone and all he brought in you probably would have noticed all of the other posts that pointed out why they should adapt to use him.

Mike is gone it's time to move on JR.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 02:12 PM
If you weren't so blinded by your hatred for a guy who's gone and all he brought in you probably would have noticed all of the other posts that pointed out why they should adapt to use him.

Mike is gone it's time to move on JR.

So are you saying no to the ham sandwich???

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 02:15 PM
So are you saying no to the ham sandwich???

I guess it would depend on what type of ham it was.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
I guess it would depend on what type of ham it was.



What I was saying in the other post was he has no use for a non blocking TE it is like teats on a boar NO value to the team..

Mikeys scheme he was good in but not now.. get what you can If you can..

kosher please..:salute:

rcsodak
03-04-2009, 03:59 PM
Sheff is known for his route running.
He's one of the fastest TE's in the league.
He has above average hands.
He led all TE's in avg.

Last I heard, his blocking had improved dramatically.
Have him add some weight, and lose Graham, who can't catch a cold when sneezed on.

If they don't get a 3rd for him, they're getting screwed, imho.

I bet the chefs would take him in a heartbeat! They could do worse, replacing Gonzo.

BeefStew25
03-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I think this could be kind of a good idea. Scheff isn't going to hold up long term. Maximize value if we can get it.

BeefStew25
03-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I think this could be kind of a good idea. Scheff isn't going to hold up long term. Maximize value if we can get it.

If I said the opposite of that earlier, I am sorry. I forget what position I take on alot of these things.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 04:04 PM
What I was saying in the other post was he has no use for a non blocking TE it is like teats on a boar NO value to the team..

Mikeys scheme he was good in but not now.. get what you can If you can..

kosher please..:salute:

Bottom line is with the talent Scheff brings to the table they should be able to find a place for him, but so much of this is unknown that it's not worth worrying about.

Foochacho
03-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Sheff is known for his route running.
He's one of the fastest TE's in the league.
He has above average hands.
He led all TE's in avg.

Last I heard, his blocking had improved dramatically.
Have him add some weight, and lose Graham, who can't catch a cold when sneezed on.

If they don't get a 3rd for him, they're getting screwed, imho.

I bet the chefs would take him in a heartbeat! They could do worse, replacing Gonzo.

Don't worry the chiefs only have a overpaid backup to throw to him.

Foochacho
03-04-2009, 04:06 PM
If I said the opposite of that earlier, I am sorry. I forget what position I take on alot of these things.

it's easy just wait for my opinion and you will always be right.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 04:13 PM
Bottom line is with the talent Scheff brings to the table they should be able to find a place for him, but so much of this is unknown that it's not worth worrying about.

I agree........kind of :)

I would hope that coach McD would not give him away but if he gets fair return go ahead and move him he does not fit the system anyway. If nobody wants to give you any real value keep him and work him down the seems on occassion. Unless McD fumbles he really cant lose in this situation.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 04:16 PM
Bottom line is with the talent Scheff brings to the table they should be able to find a place for him, but so much of this is unknown that it's not worth worrying about.

why should they have to change the system for him if he can't handle it? Round hole Square PEG?

bcbronc
03-04-2009, 04:18 PM
If he can't block at TE why would you try to adapt the Game plan to someone that will not see the field.. mikey is no longer in DEN the WCO/ZBS scheme is dead..

TEs primarily BLOCK in the NE scheme..

Having non blocking TE is taking a roster spot..

If they can get a ham sandwich for him in trade take it or Best Offer...

why would you say that? Last I heard, we get the same RB and OL coaches as were here during Shanny's last daze. you think McD kept them, but is planning on changing the blocking scheme anyway?

anyways, if McD's offense really is an amoeba like he claims, he should be able to find ways to take advantage of Scheff. he can cause mismatches all over the field. a 3-wide set with Scheff at TE and Hillis/Jordan in the backfield should be pretty attractive to McAmoeba. that said, all players have a price.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 04:19 PM
why should they have to change the system for him if he can't handle it? Round hole Square PEG?

Based on the offense ran in NE the TE's are used for blocking (FB's also for what it is worth). Tony is a pass catching, route running TE he simply does not fit the mold of a NE style offensive TE. His blocking is subpar even for a TE

They also use alot of 1 TE sets

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 04:31 PM
why should they have to change the system for him if he can't handle it? Round hole Square PEG?

Because the game's about winning not about running a system and he can help us score points which helps you win the game.

If they want to trade him because they want something out of it, go for it.

If they want to trade him because they can't figure out how to use him that's weak coaching, and that means we should have brought in someone more creative.

But again we really don't know anything about what is actually going on with all of the rumors that are out there.

Lonestar
03-04-2009, 04:38 PM
why would you say that? Last I heard, we get the same RB and OL coaches as were here during Shanny's last daze. you think McD kept them, but is planning on changing the blocking scheme anyway?

anyways, if McD's offense really is an amoeba like he claims, he should be able to find ways to take advantage of Scheff. he can cause mismatches all over the field. a 3-wide set with Scheff at TE and Hillis/Jordan in the backfield should be pretty attractive to McAmoeba. that said, all players have a price.

it is obvious that he kept them for the ZBS just not tied to the NE running game part of of the Offense..

You have to admit he could of more value as a Tradee also.. I do not think they will cut him but if he is being shopped I suspect someone will make a deal or they will keep him.. His contract is not that heavy..IIRC

Being shopped does not mean his is gone.. just trolling to see what value he has IF any.. Just because he was good in DEN when he was healthy doe not mean other have the same regards as we do..

rcsodak
03-04-2009, 04:43 PM
Because the game's about winning not about running a system and he can help us score points which helps you win the game.

If they want to trade him because they want something out of it, go for it.

If they want to trade him because they can't figure out how to use him that's weak coaching, and that means we should have brought in someone more creative.

But again we really don't know anything about what is actually going on with all of the rumors that are out there.

Wow, really?

You mean the "system" that's made Denver the Holy Grail for rb's the last 10+yrs? Has led the league in points scored/yards gained/games won/time of possession more than any other team in that time?

Is that why, in this sport of "copy what works", more and more teams are sporting the ZBS, because of the success in Denver?

I guess it's a good thing Shanny got canned then, since "systems" aren't important any longer. :rolleyes:

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 04:43 PM
Because the game's about winning not about running a system and he can help us score points which helps you win the game.

If they want to trade him because they want something out of it, go for it.

If they want to trade him because they can't figure out how to use him that's weak coaching, and that means we should have brought in someone more creative.

But again we really don't know anything about what is actually going on with all of the rumors that are out there.

Those are all fair enough points but the fact remains a team needs an identity and a focus on what they want to accomplish and how the intend to do it. If they cant get value for Tony I have no doubt McD will put in some "wrinkles" to take advantage of what Tony brings to the table.

It would all boil down to how much value can I get for this player who does not fit in with what we intend to do in Denver. Obviously a 7th is of less value then Tony is to me even if he does not fit my mold. Now a 3rd and I love ya Tony but ya gotts to go.

elsid13
03-04-2009, 05:18 PM
Problem is...a TE just doesnt see too many passes in a spread offense. Too many 3 and 4 receiver sets.

Coach I have question. I understand that McDaniels wants to run a lot of 3 reciever sets, why not use Scheffer as slot WR?

Example
Denver comes out in an ace set (2 TE, 1 RB 2WR). The defenses come out in either a base 4/3 or base 3/4. Culter looks over the field, offense shifts (which PATS do) and motion Scheffer wide. Now you have Marshall on one side, Royal in the slot and Scheffer outside. Or any combination of the three. You are now in spread 3 WR look and have the defense at a major disadvantage. Who cover Scheff? a LB or CB? Who covers Royal? Marshall? Spread offense with two TE in the game. This is similar to Dallas Clark use in Indy.

If the defense goes nickle or dime, you shift to run play and punish them.

So you still achieve the goal of the system but it also has been adapted to players you have.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 05:22 PM
Those are all fair enough points but the fact remains a team needs an identity and a focus on what they want to accomplish and how the intend to do it. If they cant get value for Tony I have no doubt McD will put in some "wrinkles" to take advantage of what Tony brings to the table.

It would all boil down to how much value can I get for this player who does not fit in with what we intend to do in Denver. Obviously a 7th is of less value then Tony is to me even if he does not fit my mold. Now a 3rd and I love ya Tony but ya gotts to go.

If you read my post one of the things I was clear about was getting something for him. If they're looking for something of value go for it.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 05:41 PM
Wow, really?

You mean the "system" that's made Denver the Holy Grail for rb's the last 10+yrs? Has led the league in points scored/yards gained/games won/time of possession more than any other team in that time?

Is that why, in this sport of "copy what works", more and more teams are sporting the ZBS, because of the success in Denver?

I guess it's a good thing Shanny got canned then, since "systems" aren't important any longer. :rolleyes:

Wow, really? You wrote this after reading the entire thread because this completely takes everything out of context.

Try reading what someone writes before you post next seriously.

I never said that you don't need a system. I never said that you should throw out all systems or anything like that.

My point is simply that if someone can help you win you tweak your system for them you don't just get rid of them, because winning is more important than just running a system.

rcsodak
03-04-2009, 05:59 PM
Wow, really? You wrote this after reading the entire thread because this completely takes everything out of context.

Try reading what someone writes before you post next seriously.

I never said that you don't need a system. I never said that you should throw out all systems or anything like that.

My point is simply that if someone can help you win you tweak your system for them you don't just get rid of them, because winning is more important than just running a system.

Wow, really?

No, I simply took what you said, and made a point from it. I can't help it if you can't make your thoughts/typed words, mesh.

Try <thinking> what you're writing before you post next seriously.

Dortoh
03-04-2009, 06:07 PM
Wow, really? You wrote this after reading the entire thread because this completely takes everything out of context.

Try reading what someone writes before you post next seriously.

I never said that you don't need a system. I never said that you should throw out all systems or anything like that.

My point is simply that if someone can help you win you tweak your system for them you don't just get rid of them, because winning is more important than just running a system.

Your kind of an angry little guy aint ya :coffee:

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 11:16 PM
Wow, really?

No, I simply took what you said, and made a point from it. I can't help it if you can't make your thoughts/typed words, mesh.

Try <thinking> what you're writing before you post next seriously.

See you were so far off that you can't even come up with a response to what I actually wrote and are just blowing smoke.

Fan in Exile
03-04-2009, 11:17 PM
Your kind of an angry little guy aint ya :coffee:

Nope, just amazed that a person who was so wrong about what I wrote could actually turn their computer on and figure out how to type.

rcsodak
03-04-2009, 11:35 PM
Nope, just amazed that a person who was so wrong about what I wrote could actually turn their computer on and figure out how to type.

Doh....

....you da bomb!! :rolleyes:

Hey, you CAN type what you mean!!!!!

Good on you, FiE. :coffee:

dogfish
03-05-2009, 12:06 AM
just FTR, it's my opinion that NE has used the TEs less the past two years because they've simply had better receivers than TEs-- unless maybe mcdaniels has some grudge against them. . .

back in 'o6, before they had moss and welker, ben watson was their second-leading receiver with 49 catches-- behind only recehe caldwell, and he only had 61 catches. . . in all TEs had exactly 33% of their completions, which looks like a pretty big number to me. . . so it's not like TEs have never been invloved in the patriots offense. . . IIRC bellyache and doogie shared the playcalling duties that year, so he should at least know how it's done. . .

also. . . if they're so big on blocking TEs and supposedly uninterested in receiving TEs, why'd they draft guys like david thomas and ben watson to replace dan graham? those guys are both better receivers than they are blockers. . . and i agree with sid-- why can't he play chef in the slot if he wants to spread the field? dallas clark probably lines up in the slot 75% of the time. . . is jabar gaffney a better weapon that chef? not IMO. . . chef's career YPC average is three freakin' yards higher than gaffney's, and he has almost as many TDs in three years as jabar has in seven. . .


for me, this is the bottom line on the issue. . . i can actually see some logic behind moving chef, IF you can get some solid compensation. . . he's our second TE, he's had fairly consistent injury problems (though not enough to keep him from putting up excellent production for a #2 TE, i would add), and he's in the last year of his deal. . . if he's not part of the long term plan, i can see where it would make sense to move him now and start grooming a replacement. . . OTOH, it's cheap to keep him (half a mil this year), and if they're concerned about him walking with nothing in return, they can always tag him and trade him for whatever they can get. . . if he continues to develop, we could get more from him that way. . .

but what really bothers me is that we haven't been told that they want to move him for any of those at least somewhat logical reasons. . . no, it's just because mcdaniels can't use him, he doesn't fit the system. . . IMO, THAT is a freakin' stupid reason to get rid of a talented, productive young player! assinine, in fact. . . mcdaniels isn't belichick just yet, as far as i'm concerned he needs to win something as a head coach (not a tag-along assistant) before he can start acting like his system is more important than the players. . . his sytem isn't the only way to win, nor a guarantee of anything-- pitt won six lombardis with a totally different scheme. . . THEY'RE the talent, buddy, your job is just to manage them. . .

if he lets a good player go on the cheap with no better rationale, it makes him look inflexible, unable to think on his feet, improvise and come up with creative schemes. . . . the best coaches find ways to take advantage of the available talent, and i think a LOT of broncos fans wanted to see doogie come in and maximize the exceptional potential of the offensive talent that we already have in place, while investing most of his time and resources on fixing the pathetic wreck of a defense. . . doesn't it make sense to fix what's broke first?? where's it written instone that he has to have his binkie (i mean, system) to be successful here? he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, use what you already have and make the most of it. . .

besides, with marshall facing a significant suspension, don't we want all the weapons we can get to pick up the slack? i don't think a rookie is likely to replace his production-- he's our best red zone threat, and safeties have to respect his ability to attack the seams. . .



i'm not about to suggest that it'll be the end of the world if we get rid of him, but i just hope they don't give away a very talented young player on the cheap just because doogie is too stiff-necked and attached to his system to find a way to use him. . . just seems to me that the guy is intent on rebuilding the entire program from top to bottom all in one year, and i can't help but wondering if that isn't too ambitious a project for a first time head coach. . . would it kill him to lean on what's already in place for a year or two while filling in the most glaring weak spots. . . ?

*sighs*

meh, what do i know? he's got the job, he's gonna do what he wants. . . i'm not saying it can't work, and there's no doubt that he's ambitious. . . i just hope the guy is as smart as he seems to think he is, and knows what he's doing. . . if you're going to take a friggin' axe to the roster and then burn it to the ground, the only acceptable result is building a stronger roster in its place. . .

shank
03-05-2009, 12:09 AM
can you imagine tony's numbers if he didn't have injury problems?

fcspikeit
03-05-2009, 12:20 AM
Because it uses alot of 3 and 4 receiver sets and having an extra guy on the line that can actually keep defenders off the QB's ass is usually a good idea.

As I read that I am remembering Brady getting knocked on his ass, time and time again in the Superbowl. Funny thing, I don't remember the Pats ever bringing in a blocking TE to help out :confused:

fcspikeit
03-05-2009, 12:27 AM
The only problem is Sheff actually is more of a playmaker than Graham is. Obviously Sheff has a health issue that hangs over his head but there's no question that in the open field he trumps Graham. But, Graham is a former Pat boy so its obvious where McD's loyality lies and Graham is also a better blocker than Sheff. But i still think we need a true downfield threat at that position so i hope that if we trade Sheff we draft a guy like Coffman or Nelson that we can utilize in that type of package.

I agree about Sheff, he has a lot to offer an offense, with his size and speed he can cause a lot of miss matches for any defense.

But I see no point in trading him if we were going to just draft another receiving TE.. If it's a receiving TE we want and need, how much better are you going to get then Sheffler?

fcspikeit
03-05-2009, 12:37 AM
I actually really like Putz. I was pissed at that move.

Putz is still on the roster from last year,,, or did Mckid already cut him? :confused:

omac
03-05-2009, 12:55 AM
can you imagine tony's numbers if he didn't have injury problems?

Yup, part of the reason he gets injured is that he always goes all out, always puts his body on the line to make a catch, takes big hits and hangs on to the ball.

Btw, great post, dogfish! :salute:

Scheffler is a true warrior of a player. He's real clutch in crucial situations, as evidenced by all his big catches at big moments. The way he fights for the ball, and his concentration is amazing, like the TD catch he made leaping, getting a hand on the ball, then juggling it, trapping it in between his legs, then securing it for the TD. Funny thing is, he's made a lot of those great grabs.

The thing is, our current receiving corps, with Marshall, Eddie, Stokley, Scheffler, and Graham have all proven to be clutch in big time situations. Though we've brought in other possibly talented receivers, like Darrell Jackson and Chad Jackson, they pale in comparison. When you see a NE highlight reel, it's usually Moss or Welker with the big grabs; sometimes, it's Gaffney, but not usually. With Denver, on a different week, it's a different receiver coming up big. It's not that difficult to replace talent, but clutch players aren't that easy to find, and the core of our offense has tons. We shouldn't be losing players like that, if we have the ability to keep them.

Our core receivers just have the ability to find the endzone, or get those crucial 3rd downs. I recently watched the Atlanta game again, and the sportscasters showed our redzone stats up until that game, the 10th one, or 2/3rds of the season. In the whole league, we ranked 6th in red zone conversion.

Scheffler is one of Jay's favorite targets, just as Clark is one of Peyton's favorites. Like dogfish says, we'd better make sure we get great compensation for him. Announcing that he's up for trade, because he doesn't fit McDaniels' system will probably give more negotiating power to our opponents.

keithbishop
03-05-2009, 01:18 AM
Putz is still on the roster from last year,,, or did Mckid already cut him? :confused:


He's a FA.

pnbronco
03-05-2009, 02:13 AM
Great posts Dog and OMAC.

Dortoh
03-05-2009, 10:23 AM
just FTR, it's my opinion that NE has used the TEs less the past two years because they've simply had better receivers than TEs-- unless maybe mcdaniels has some grudge against them. . .

back in 'o6, before they had moss and welker, ben watson was their second-leading receiver with 49 catches-- behind only recehe caldwell, and he only had 61 catches. . . in all TEs had exactly 33% of their completions, which looks like a pretty big number to me. . . so it's not like TEs have never been invloved in the patriots offense. . . IIRC bellyache and doogie shared the playcalling duties that year, so he should at least know how it's done. . .

also. . . if they're so big on blocking TEs and supposedly uninterested in receiving TEs, why'd they draft guys like david thomas and ben watson to replace dan graham? those guys are both better receivers than they are blockers. . . and i agree with sid-- why can't he play chef in the slot if he wants to spread the field? dallas clark probably lines up in the slot 75% of the time. . . is jabar gaffney a better weapon that chef? not IMO. . . chef's career YPC average is three freakin' yards higher than gaffney's, and he has almost as many TDs in three years as jabar has in seven. . .


for me, this is the bottom line on the issue. . . i can actually see some logic behind moving chef, IF you can get some solid compensation. . . he's our second TE, he's had fairly consistent injury problems (though not enough to keep him from putting up excellent production for a #2 TE, i would add), and he's in the last year of his deal. . . if he's not part of the long term plan, i can see where it would make sense to move him now and start grooming a replacement. . . OTOH, it's cheap to keep him (half a mil this year), and if they're concerned about him walking with nothing in return, they can always tag him and trade him for whatever they can get. . . if he continues to develop, we could get more from him that way. . .

but what really bothers me is that we haven't been told that they want to move him for any of those at least somewhat logical reasons. . . no, it's just because mcdaniels can't use him, he doesn't fit the system. . . IMO, THAT is a freakin' stupid reason to get rid of a talented, productive young player! assinine, in fact. . . mcdaniels isn't belichick just yet, as far as i'm concerned he needs to win something as a head coach (not a tag-along assistant) before he can start acting like his system is more important than the players. . . his sytem isn't the only way to win, nor a guarantee of anything-- pitt won six lombardis with a totally different scheme. . . THEY'RE the talent, buddy, your job is just to manage them. . .

if he lets a good player go on the cheap with no better rationale, it makes him look inflexible, unable to think on his feet, improvise and come up with creative schemes. . . . the best coaches find ways to take advantage of the available talent, and i think a LOT of broncos fans wanted to see doogie come in and maximize the exceptional potential of the offensive talent that we already have in place, while investing most of his time and resources on fixing the pathetic wreck of a defense. . . doesn't it make sense to fix what's broke first?? where's it written instone that he has to have his binkie (i mean, system) to be successful here? he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, use what you already have and make the most of it. . .

besides, with marshall facing a significant suspension, don't we want all the weapons we can get to pick up the slack? i don't think a rookie is likely to replace his production-- he's our best red zone threat, and safeties have to respect his ability to attack the seams. . .



i'm not about to suggest that it'll be the end of the world if we get rid of him, but i just hope they don't give away a very talented young player on the cheap just because doogie is too stiff-necked and attached to his system to find a way to use him. . . just seems to me that the guy is intent on rebuilding the entire program from top to bottom all in one year, and i can't help but wondering if that isn't too ambitious a project for a first time head coach. . . would it kill him to lean on what's already in place for a year or two while filling in the most glaring weak spots. . . ?

*sighs*

meh, what do i know? he's got the job, he's gonna do what he wants. . . i'm not saying it can't work, and there's no doubt that he's ambitious. . . i just hope the guy is as smart as he seems to think he is, and knows what he's doing. . . if you're going to take a friggin' axe to the roster and then burn it to the ground, the only acceptable result is building a stronger roster in its place. . .

Hey Dog,

Can I get the cliff notes version of that?

TIA


J/K great post :beer:

Nick
03-05-2009, 11:43 AM
Well there is a pretty darn good TE in the draft :cool:

Dreadnought
03-05-2009, 11:49 AM
Brilliant stuff from Dogfish and Omac. I can't add to that

omac
03-05-2009, 02:37 PM
How can any coach not be able to use this guy on his offense? :beer:

W3_OP1JCs9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_OP1JCs9o

weazel
03-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Graham left New England because he didnt like that gameplan, now they aer keeping him and trading Shef? ridiculous.

McDaniels is a joke.

Dreadnought
03-05-2009, 03:11 PM
How can any coach not be able to use this guy on his offense?

He'd almost have to be a total dolt, wouldn't he?

elsid13
03-05-2009, 06:12 PM
He'd almost have to be a total dolt, wouldn't he?

I'm getting the feeling that our drunk of a owner was sold on PowerPoint slides and didn't do his research.

Fan in Exile
03-05-2009, 07:06 PM
Graham left New England because he didnt like that gameplan, now they aer keeping him and trading Shef? ridiculous.

McDaniels is a joke.

I was pretty sure that Graham left New England because we were paying him 6 million a year which is a number that no one else was going to touch.

weazel
03-05-2009, 09:48 PM
I was pretty sure that Graham left New England because we were paying him 6 million a year which is a number that no one else was going to touch.

read article, reply. It's not that hard, just try it. I'm rooting for you!

topscribe
03-05-2009, 09:58 PM
Graham left New England because he didnt like that gameplan, now they aer keeping him and trading Shef? ridiculous.

McDaniels is a joke.

I direly hope you're wrong about the last part, buddy . . .

-----

weazel
03-05-2009, 10:03 PM
I direly hope you're wrong about the last part, buddy . . .

-----

he's either a joke, or a saboteur

topscribe
03-05-2009, 10:05 PM
he's either a joke, or a saboteur

I know, I know.

Maybe I ought to confess that I hope you and I are wrong . . . :look:

-----