PDA

View Full Version : Marshall clearly now No. 1 receiver



Denver Native (Carol)
11-07-2009, 10:12 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13733563

Just how far has Brandon Marshall's standing on the team improved over the course of the first half of the season?

Not only did team officials show that Marshall has regained their trust when they repaid the fines they had collected from the wide receiver earlier, coaches are showing that Marshall has earned their trust on the field too.

Marshall was in the lineup for the offense's first 34 snaps Sunday against Baltimore, not missing a play until the Broncos' first series in the third quarter. None of the Broncos' other receivers played for such consistent stretches.

Consider the first half of last Sunday's game: Marshall was in for all 30 snaps, while Eddie Royal lined up for 17, Jabar Gaffney 16 and Brandon Stokley 12. Tight end Daniel Graham was in for 20 of those snaps.

For Marshall, it's a remarkable difference from earlier in the season, when Marshall was still working his way out of coach Josh McDaniels' dog house. There was a stretch in the team's second game, against Cleveland, when Marshall stood on the sideline for 27 consecutive offensive snaps.

It might not make fantasy football players happy — with 33 catches for 356 yards, Marshall's production is down from his Pro Bowl pace of 2008 — but the more involved Marshall is in all facets of Denver's offense the better.

Tned
11-07-2009, 10:18 AM
The Broncos and Marshall kissing and making up makes the team much, much better. Hopefully, this will translate into a long term contract after the season.

Nomad
11-07-2009, 11:02 AM
I believe Marshall has turned around for the better and his on field play is proof enough to earn a big payday. I know every now and then he does something immature on the field but we all do in life. But I still would put language in the contract that if he really messes up with off field issues, he'll lose what he has earned!! BRONCOS offense wouldn't be the same without him, but he has to keep on the right track as well!!

SmilinAssasSin27
11-07-2009, 11:05 AM
It's still only been 5 weeks...

I hope it's legit, but 5 weeks.

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:08 AM
It's still only been 5 weeks...

I hope it's legit, but 5 weeks.

The last two years is proof of what he can do on the field. Things that only a few other WR in the league can do.

SmilinAssasSin27
11-07-2009, 11:11 AM
When was his on field performance EVER been in question? His oof teh field antics have been an embarassment. How soon we forget.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 11:13 AM
I believe Marshall has turned around for the better and his on field play is proof enough to earn a big payday. I know every now and then he does something immature on the field but we all do in life. But I still would put language in the contract that if he really messes up with off field issues, he'll lose what he has earned!! BRONCOS offense wouldn't be the same without him, but he has to keep on the right track as well!!

Can't put those kind of poison pills in an NFL contract.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 11:13 AM
It's still only been 5 weeks...

I hope it's legit, but 5 weeks.

when has his offfield antics ever been a problem DURING the season?

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:15 AM
when has his offfield antics ever been a problem DURING the season?

He did get suspended for one game, so that is really the only on-field impact.

SmilinAssasSin27
11-07-2009, 11:19 AM
WOW you are some superior homers. The dude has been a joke and an embarrasment off of the field. From the "alleged" domestic abuse, to his fight w/ his TV, to his pre-season childish behavior caught on camera. The dude is an 8 year old thug. But hey, he's been good for 5 weeks cuz he wants a paycheck so all is well, right? Too funny.

Nomad
11-07-2009, 11:22 AM
Can't put those kind of poison pills in an NFL contract.


If he wants to get paid, sure a team can!! And unless they're desperate, I don't see a team out there who wouldn't! A team has to cover their ass as well when you have a problem child off the field!!

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:23 AM
WOW you are some superior homers. The dude has been a joke and an embarrasment off of the field. From the "alleged" domestic abuse, to his fight w/ his TV, to his pre-season childish behavior caught on camera. The dude is an 8 year old thug. But hey, he's been good for 5 weeks cuz he wants a paycheck so all is well, right? Too funny.

It has nothing to do with being a homer in my case, it's the fact I don't look at football players as role models and don't get bent out of shape over what they do off the field. Most of these players lead off field lives that I don't agree with, but what I care about is what they do on the field. If we are going to only have boy scouts on the team, then we will probably need to cut half the team (and half the NFL in general).

SmilinAssasSin27
11-07-2009, 11:26 AM
It has nothing to do with being a homer in my case, it's the fact I don't look at football players as role models and don't get bent out of shape over what they do off the field. Most of these players lead off field lives that I don't agree with, but what I care about is what they do on the field. If we are going to only have boy scouts on the team, then we will probably need to cut half the team (and half the NFL in general).

But the apparent belief that he will behave from here on out and that there isn't any way he later could effect this team is mind boggling. Dude is on the suspension path. He's already gotten his breaks from the commish. Any future antics will crush this team.

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:31 AM
If he wants to get paid, sure a team can!! And unless they're desperate, I don't see a team out there who wouldn't! A team has to cover their ass as well when you have a problem child off the field!!

There are specific rules related to what individually negotiated clauses can be added to a contract, when it relates to forfeiting salary or signing bonus. For instance, it is not allowed for a club and player to negotiate a contract that says the player will forfeit salary if he fails a drug test.

I'm not sure what, if any, limitations there are in regards to a clause in the contract where he would forfeit salary if he was suspended for off field behavior/legal problems.

Nomad
11-07-2009, 11:33 AM
It has nothing to do with being a homer in my case, it's the fact I don't look at football players as role models and don't get bent out of shape over what they do off the field. Most of these players lead off field lives that I don't agree with, but what I care about is what they do on the field. If we are going to only have boy scouts on the team, then we will probably need to cut half the team (and half the NFL in general).

No one is asking them to be alter boys (btw they're some of the worst I was one at one time:D). Like Smilin is saying, keep it clean and play football to where it won't effect the team. Getting in trouble time after time does effect the team and if Marshall screws up then he no good to us if suspended and taking up money that could be paid to someone who wants to keep it on the straight and narrow and be on the field. That's why put language in his contract to where he understands if he screws up, the BRONCOS take money back or whatever to cover their butts. It's not like Marshall is a one time offender.

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:35 AM
But the apparent belief that he will behave from here on out and that there isn't any way he later could effect this team is mind boggling. Dude is on the suspension path. He's already gotten his breaks from the commish. Any future antics will crush this team.

I have no belief he will never get into trouble again. I figure there is a relatively good chance he will.

However, I believe the Broncos have to take a calculated risk in this regard.

Look at it this way. Prior to Marshall, how many wide receivers did the Broncos draft or pickup in free agency, trying to find a dominant wide receiver? A true play maker? Should we list them? It will be a long list, including quite a few first day picks.

Yes, Marshall might get in trouble and get suspended, but it would be crazy to throw away this level of talent, because he 'might' get suspended at some point down the road.

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:38 AM
No one is asking them to be alter boys (btw they're some of the worst I was one at one time:D). Like Smilin is saying, keep it clean and play football to where it won't effect the team. Getting in trouble time after time does effect the team and if Marshall screws up then he no good to us if suspended and taking up money that could be paid to someone who wants to keep it on the straight and narrow and be on the field. That's why put language in his contract to where he understands if he screws up, the BRONCOS take money back or whatever to cover their butts. It's not like Marshall is a one time offender.

I have no problem with the language, if the CBA allows it.

Now, some people suggested in the offseason that he should be signed to something akin to a league minimum contract that is all incentive based. That's a pipe dream and Marshall would never sign it, because there are probably 25 teams in the NFL that would make him a VERY rich man if he hits the open market.

SmilinAssasSin27
11-07-2009, 11:43 AM
I have no belief he will never get into trouble again. I figure there is a relatively good chance he will.

However, I believe the Broncos have to take a calculated risk in this regard.

Look at it this way. Prior to Marshall, how many wide receivers did the Broncos draft or pickup in free agency, trying to find a dominant wide receiver? A true play maker? Should we list them? It will be a long list, including quite a few first day picks.

Yes, Marshall might get in trouble and get suspended, but it would be crazy to throw away this level of talent, because he 'might' get suspended at some point down the road.

Yet your willing to make a long term commitment which, financially, could hurt other parts of the team?

Nomad
11-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Best out of 5 coin flip! heads - pay him take the risk; tails - tell him to prove an offseason without trouble and we'll negotiate!!

Tned
11-07-2009, 11:51 AM
Yet your willing to make a long term commitment which, financially, could hurt other parts of the team?

Of course. Look at all the contracts that we have signed WR's to that didn't produce even close to the way Marshall has the last two years -- free agents and draft picks.

I wouldn't allow a top 5 WR talent to walk, because he 'might' screw up and get suspended. This season has been a good example. When Marshall hasn't been on the field, the offense hasn't been as good (which is why he is off the field less and less in the recent games). In virutally all of the 'big' situations, including in the Bengals game, they called Marshall's number.

Yes, it is a risk. Yes, his on field talent is worth the risk, IMO.

Denver Native (Carol)
11-07-2009, 11:58 AM
For those who have not listened to the following, it is good.

Brandon Marshall talks with Alfred & Dmac

11/5/2009

http://www.fm1043thefan.com/channels/audioOnDemand/Story.aspx?ID=1162282

Northman
11-07-2009, 12:02 PM
As long as Bmarsh has no further off the field issues this year i have no problem paying him the money. But, his contract should not be extended until the end of the year and there should be a clause in there regarding any future off the field issues. Pay him what he is worth but the organization should protect themselves with clauses for any future incidents.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 12:16 PM
As long as Bmarsh has no further off the field issues this year i have no problem paying him the money. But, his contract should not be extended until the end of the year and there should be a clause in there regarding any future off the field issues. Pay him what he is worth but the organization should protect themselves with clauses for any future incidents.

But.. you can't protect yourself from the signing bonus. He'll demand a pretty hefty one

Tned
11-07-2009, 12:19 PM
But.. you can't protect yourself from the signing bonus. He'll demand a pretty hefty one

There are situations where you can get up to 25% of the signing bonus back if I remember correctly. I'm not sure if a morals/off field clause can get back more than 25%.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 12:20 PM
No one is asking them to be alter boys (btw they're some of the worst I was one at one time:D). Like Smilin is saying, keep it clean and play football to where it won't effect the team. Getting in trouble time after time does effect the team and if Marshall screws up then he no good to us if suspended and taking up money that could be paid to someone who wants to keep it on the straight and narrow and be on the field. That's why put language in his contract to where he understands if he screws up, the BRONCOS take money back or whatever to cover their butts. It's not like Marshall is a one time offender.

I don't think the CBA allows that kind of contract where they can demand money BACK. They may be able to have 'bonus' money (like a roster bonus) put in his contract if he doesn't have any off field issues...thus making it where they don't pay him THAT money if he does, but the signing bonus will remain in his hands no matter what.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 12:21 PM
There are situations where you can get up to 25% of the signing bonus back if I remember correctly. I'm not sure if a morals/off field clause can get back more than 25%.

Hmmmm.. thats interesting. You may be right on that. I didn't know of that CBA addition. Is that part of the Owens rule?

Northman
11-07-2009, 12:32 PM
But.. you can't protect yourself from the signing bonus. He'll demand a pretty hefty one


Maybe, maybe not. Signing bonus's are still contracts and depending on how you word it a character clause could be put in there. Its like "here you go Brandon, your 30 million signing bonus. But understand that if you get into trouble off the field we reserve the right to get some of that bonus back". Thats how i would do it.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2009, 12:37 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Signing bonus's are still contracts and depending on how you word it a character clause could be put in there. Its like "here you go Brandon, your 30 million signing bonus. But understand that if you get into trouble off the field we reserve the right to get some of that bonus back". Thats how i would do it.

Yeah.. IF its allowed with the CBA. You can't just put that in the contracts, as there are rules AGAINST those type of poison pills. But.. if Tned is right, then they may be able to put a morals clause in, which could get 25% of it back. That would be a new one added, and am guessing it came with the Owens rule.... but I don't know. I just know at one time owners couldn't put those type of restrictions on a contract.

dogfish
11-07-2009, 12:39 PM
There are specific rules related to what individually negotiated clauses can be added to a contract, when it relates to forfeiting salary or signing bonus. For instance, it is not allowed for a club and player to negotiate a contract that says the player will forfeit salary if he fails a drug test.

I'm not sure what, if any, limitations there are in regards to a clause in the contract where he would forfeit salary if he was suspended for off field behavior/legal problems.


I don't think the CBA allows that kind of contract where they can demand money BACK. They may be able to have 'bonus' money (like a roster bonus) put in his contract if he doesn't have any off field issues...thus making it where they don't pay him THAT money if he does, but the signing bonus will remain in his hands no matter what.

i'm guessing this is where the team would be able to protect itself to a certain degree. . . T's absolutely correct, the idea that a guy with his talent and production would sign a small base deal with all the money in incentives is utterly laughable-- we're trying to sign him to a contract in denver, not fantasyland! however, as long as the total numbers are right, he just might be amenable to a deal that has a somewhat larger than usual percentage of the total money in a few lump roster bonuses attatched to the second, third and fourth years, as opposed to having the entirety of the bonus money in the form of a guaranteed signing bonus. . . for a star player in his prime, those yearly roster bonuses are typically looked at as easy money as long as the guy doesn't get hurt or completely tank, and having five or ten million of a fifty million dollar deal in that form isn't uncommon. . .

of course, we're still going to have to pay him a solid deal-- you put in what protection ya can, but you just don't sign a guy like that without some risk. . . it's understood, and teams take risks with every big contract they shell out. . . we got burnt on the travis henry deal, and javon walker has burnt his last two teams. . . it happens. . . you sign a guy to a big deal, and he gets hurt, gets lazy, or loses a step. . . it's all about analyzing the risk-reward ratio and taking the right chances, because there's no such thing as a risk-free player or contract. . .

also, ONE bad deal doesn't ruin your whole salary structure-- almost every team carries some dead money from year to year. . . it's when you make multiple poor decisions that it really starts to impact your ability to field a competitive product. . . and as a matter of fact, there was an article posted here not too long ago that said we have some of the most dead money in the league on this year's payroll, and we're still putting a damn good team out there. . .

the coaching staff knows marshall far better than any of us ever will. . . all we can do is cross our fingers and hope they make the right decision. . . keeping him is a calculated risk, certainly. . . but i agree with T-- i think the risk of letting him walk is potentially higher than the risk of keeping him. . . he brings some important elements to our passing game that the rest of our receiver just don't. . . . the game-winner against dallas being a perfect example. . .

Nomad
11-07-2009, 12:39 PM
As long as Bmarsh has no further off the field issues this year i have no problem paying him the money. But, his contract should not be extended until the end of the year and there should be a clause in there regarding any future off the field issues. Pay him what he is worth but the organization should protect themselves with clauses for any future incidents.

That's what I'm saying! I'm not going to pretend to know the NFL contracting, but hopefully there's a way the BRONCOS can protect themselves from things like this. Like I said before, it's not like Marshall is a one time offender and you give him the benefit of the doubt! Also the BRONCOS offense and outcome of some of our games wouldn't be the same without him!! It's tough to choose!! glad the FO has this headache, but hopefully they make the right decision to benefit the BRONCOS in the long run.....cause that's all I care about!!

TXBRONC
11-07-2009, 02:15 PM
No one is asking them to be alter boys (btw they're some of the worst I was one at one time:D). Like Smilin is saying, keep it clean and play football to where it won't effect the team. Getting in trouble time after time does effect the team and if Marshall screws up then he no good to us if suspended and taking up money that could be paid to someone who wants to keep it on the straight and narrow and be on the field. That's why put language in his contract to where he understands if he screws up, the BRONCOS take money back or whatever to cover their butts. It's not like Marshall is a one time offender.

I don't know if it would be legal to try put language into a contract that force him to give them back money if got into trouble again. If it legal I think we would have seen that by now from some other team in the League like for instance the Eagles signing of Vick.

Lonestar
11-07-2009, 08:26 PM
Yet your willing to make a long term commitment which, financially, could hurt other parts of the team?

Some will mortgage the future because he averaged in years past 6 touches a game.

To some he is a suoerstar therefore should given the key to the city.

Just curious how did he do last week when we needed him.

IIRC he all bit disappeared after a near hit over the niddle by Ray L

Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel