View Full Version : Eagles interested in Scheffler?
2Fity@The303
04-25-2009, 07:57 AM
Per rotoworld.....Asking a first? Probably just seeing what the market will bear, and if Philly will bite? Tee it high and let if fly...
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=3705
Tony Scheffler-TE- Broncos Apr. 25 - 2:59 am et
The Eagles phoned the Broncos about Tony Scheffler's availability recently.
Philadelphia lost out to Atlanta for Tony Gonzalez, but could add more speed and youth with Scheffler, who has experience in a West Coast style offense like Andy Reid's. The Denver Post says the Broncos won't trade Scheffler unless they're offered a first-round pick. We're confident he can be had for at a second- or third-rounder, though. Josh McDaniels' offense uses TEs little, Scheffler's in a contract year, and he's been on the trade block for months.
Requiem / The Dagda
04-25-2009, 07:58 AM
Josh if you are offered a third this year you better do it.
2Fity@The303
04-25-2009, 08:03 AM
Or if you could fleece a 2nd round pick out of somebody next year....(similar to the T-Gonzalez trade to ATL)
Superchop 7
04-25-2009, 08:09 AM
A first ???
Yeah Josh, he is "all" that......
puh-leeze...
SmilinAssasSin27
04-25-2009, 08:12 AM
I'm thinking we coukld get a #2. Philly is close and Reid will retire soon. The value of draft picks to them likely isn't what it is to other teams.
claymore
04-25-2009, 08:22 AM
Me thinks this doesnt happen till Pettigrew is off the board. And I see KC taking him early in the 2nd.
Nomad
04-25-2009, 08:25 AM
Me thinks this doesnt happen till Pettigrew is off the board. And I see KC taking him early in the 2nd.
Unless somehow the BRONCOS take Moreno because supposedly that's who Philly is eyeing!! I hope the BRONCOS get a 2nd for Scheffler if it does work out!!
Drill-N-Fill
04-25-2009, 08:38 AM
I'm glad he's asking a first. What did you want, come out asking for a 3rd and leave no room for negotiation? One thing is for sure, Scheff won't be here after next year. I'll trade him for a 5th easy.
Drill-N-Fill
04-25-2009, 08:39 AM
Me thinks this doesnt happen till Pettigrew is off the board. And I see KC taking him early in the 2nd.
IMHO Pettigrew will be gone mid to late first round.
Ravage!!!
04-25-2009, 09:02 AM
Me thinks this doesnt happen till Pettigrew is off the board. And I see KC taking him early in the 2nd.
KC traded their second for Matt Cassel
Ravage!!!
04-25-2009, 09:04 AM
I think we all know that Scheff isn't worth a first, but I can't blame the coaches for saying that. At least thats the 'starting point' for negotiations. It tells them "don't approach me with a 5th and then have me work up from there." We start from a first, and accept a 3rd.
Expect Scheff to be traded today or tomorrow. I'm surprised he's lasted this long.
I don't think there is any way he is worth a first, but I do think a second, especially in the second half of the round, to the first half of the third is about right.
A lot depends on the teams needs. Scheffler has been used sparingly by the Broncos, because Graham is the blocking TE, but I am sure many teams like the way Scheffler splits the defense and stretches the field in a Sharpe/Whitten way.
In the right offense, he could be a very productive TE.
DenBronx
04-25-2009, 10:05 AM
KC traded their second for Matt Cassel
i think 2010 2nd.
id pull the trigger if i were the broncos. sheffler is unhappy here anyway, plus he gets injured too much.
jrelway
04-25-2009, 10:22 AM
no one aint gonna give us a first or a second for that injury prone mug.
As long as we get reasonable compensation I'm all for trading Tony. We have Graham as a blocking TE and Putzier, but more importantly I think it would allow more opportunity for HILLIS to play H-back as well as FB and short yardage RB.
broncos9697
04-25-2009, 12:04 PM
the eagles will never give up a first they dont use there tight ends as much as other teams....
I could see a 5th this year and 3rd next year maybe???.........were not going to get much out of him..
We could and should use him in a package deal with another team maybe with 49ers
They use the TE plenty. Hell, they really don't have a threat at WR. I would think they would love to get Scheff.
I would say 3rd rounder sounds about right. Does Philly have a 3rd?
MOtorboat
04-25-2009, 12:49 PM
They use the TE plenty. Hell, they really don't have a threat at WR. I would think they would love to get Scheff.
I would say 3rd rounder sounds about right. Does Philly have a 3rd?
Yes, but they don't have a fourth-round pick...so they might not want to let their third go too...they do have 4 5th round picks.
Yes, but they don't have a fourth-round pick...so they might not want to let their third go too...they do have 4 5th round picks.
What would you take for Schef?
MOtorboat
04-25-2009, 01:31 PM
What would you take for Schef?
I don't really know his worth. I, personally would say he's worth a third-round pick, but you have to wonder about his durability. He just can't stay healthy, so that would lower his value, and the fact that its clear Denver wants to get rid of him.
I think we get low-balled if we try to trade him this weekend. If they are the only ones offering, two fifths wouldn't be the end of the world. Maybe not the best deal for Denver, but Denver may just not be seeing the offers out there that they think would be worth moving him for.
We don't have a ton of quality WR depth, especially with a potential Marshall suspension looming, so rather than take 5th's, I would hang on to him as he can play the slot, in the spread.
MOtorboat
04-25-2009, 01:38 PM
We don't have a ton of quality WR depth, especially with a potential Marshall suspension looming, so rather than take 5th's, I would hang on to him as he can play the slot, in the spread.
I would agree with this...
But, two fifths can be turned into a third, if that's what they really wanted to do...and with potentially three thirds...that's a lot of ammo, if you want to make some trades and either acquire more picks or pick up some veterans to fill some gaps. Somewhere, Denver has to find, at least imo, all three positions on the defensive line and at least one or two starting linebackers.
Agreed. I think there is a 'chance' that we have a servicable nose tackle on the roster, but not an impact one (being able to stop the run and penetrate), so I agree we need to get players for all three spots on the line, especially knowing that if we get three, we will be lucky if two pan out.
I think we need at minimum an OLB, as Davis and DJ will probably be fine in the middle, but Doom, Moss, Crowder and Reid are all question marks in terms of converting to OLB. Bailey is both a question mark in terms of health and ability at OLB in a 3-4.
So, my comfort level would be at least one good OLB prospect, and two wouldn't upset me.
MOtorboat
04-25-2009, 01:52 PM
Agreed. I think there is a 'chance' that we have a servicable nose tackle on the roster, but not an impact one (being able to stop the run and penetrate), so I agree we need to get players for all three spots on the line, especially knowing that if we get three, we will be lucky if two pan out.
I think we need at minimum an OLB, as Davis and DJ will probably be fine in the middle, but Doom, Moss, Crowder and Reid are all question marks in terms of converting to OLB. Bailey is both a question mark in terms of health and ability at OLB in a 3-4.
So, my comfort level would be at least one good OLB prospect, and two wouldn't upset me.
Oh, I absolutely think we have to take two OLBs...maybe three or four, it's that one has to pan out.
I need to clarify my other point, we need four defensive players that pan out as starters for us in this draft.
Oh, I absolutely think we have to take two OLBs...maybe three or four, it's that one has to pan out.
I need to clarify my other point, we need four defensive players that pan out as starters for us in this draft.
Yea, that's a tall task. At least in terms of impact players.
My guess is we take one OLB early in the draft, and then probably another late. Likely a MLB mid-to late, and then 2-3 DL/DT's.
We'll likely then get at least one each OL, WR, RB, QB, S, DB in the later rounds. Even though we have a lot of picks, you start running out of them pretty quick when you try and adress all the holes and positions we need depth or developmental players.
Fan in Exile
04-25-2009, 02:27 PM
We don't have a ton of quality WR depth, especially with a potential Marshall suspension looming, so rather than take 5th's, I would hang on to him as he can play the slot, in the spread.
I don't know how people can think that we need a wide receiver.
We've Got Marshall, Royal, Stockley, Gaffney, Jackson. Seriously that's a great set of receivers. Even if you're complaining about depth how many teams have a number four like Gaffney? For a fifth receiver Jackson's great, as long as you're realistic about what the fifth guy is going to do.
Sure Marshall might get suspended but let's be realistic about what we want to commit to the WR position when we've got so many other holes. All the reports so far are that he won't get suspended.
I don't know how people can think that we need a wide receiver.
We've Got Marshall, Royal, Stockley, Gaffney, Jackson. Seriously that's a great set of receivers. Even if you're complaining about depth how many teams have a number four like Gaffney? For a fifth receiver Jackson's great, as long as you're realistic about what the fifth guy is going to do.
Sure Marshall might get suspended but let's be realistic about what we want to commit to the WR position when we've got so many other holes. All the reports so far are that he won't get suspended.
Jackson didn't show much last year. Marshall could miss zero to eight games. The reviews are all over the board on Gaffney from a solid contributor, to nothing more than a 4th or 5th string roster filler.
Marshall, Royal and Stokely are good to great, beyond that, we don't have much.
dogfish
04-25-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't know how people can think that we need a wide receiver.
We've Got Marshall, Royal, Stockley, Gaffney, Jackson. Seriously that's a great set of receivers. Even if you're complaining about depth how many teams have a number four like Gaffney? For a fifth receiver Jackson's great, as long as you're realistic about what the fifth guy is going to do.
Sure Marshall might get suspended but let's be realistic about what we want to commit to the WR position when we've got so many other holes. All the reports so far are that he won't get suspended.
we have a great set of WRs for this year, but it's possible that marshall may not be part of the team's long term plans going forward, given that he's had so many off-field problems and is in the last year of his contract-- and stokley can't have many years left. . . factor in the kind of depth you need at the position to run the spread plus the time it takes to develop receivers, and i think there's a good chance we take one somewhere in the first four rounds. . . .
Benetto
04-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Sheff is a follower...He requests a trade once his boyfriend is traded away.
Get him outta here..:coffee:
Fan in Exile
04-25-2009, 05:24 PM
we have a great set of WRs for this year, but it's possible that marshall may not be part of the team's long term plans going forward, given that he's had so many off-field problems and is in the last year of his contract-- and stokley can't have many years left. . . factor in the kind of depth you need at the position to run the spread plus the time it takes to develop receivers, and i think there's a good chance we take one somewhere in the first four rounds. . . .
I just don't see it. It comes across as people worrying about nothing. They're going to resign Marshall. Number three's don't take as long to develop as number ones. We have too many holes on defense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.