PDA

View Full Version : Rumors abound that Bears want Brandon Marshall


TonyR
03-03-2010, 08:32 AM
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 10:45 AM ET

Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall says he's willing to stay in Denver this year, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen says he wants to keep Marshall and Broncos coach Josh McDaniels thinks it can work.

And yet hardly anyone seems to think Marshall will be a Bronco in 2010.

The biggest question is which team would be the best landing spot for Marshall, and Neil Hayes of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that it could be the Bears. Hayes writes that Bears GM Jerry Angelo's comments about wide receiver not being a ''need'' position are viewed by many as a smoke screen, and that one NFL source wagered a steak dinner on Marshall being in a Bears uniform when camp opens.

We're not sure whether Hayes accepted the wager, or whether the Sun-Times allows its reporters to wager dinners with sources, but the bottom line is that the Bears are among the handful of teams that are consistently named as a potential suitor for Marshall's services.

Bears quarterback Jay Cutler had a good rapport with Marshall when they were teammates in Denver, and new Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz would love to add a talented wide receiver to the offense. It's safe to say this won't be the last time we hear talk about the Bears acquiring Marshall.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/rumors-abound-that-bears-want-brandon-marshall/

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/hayes/2080116,CST-SPT-neil03.article

Conklin
03-03-2010, 08:34 AM
and which player would they trade for him since they don't pick until the third round

El Jué
03-03-2010, 08:37 AM
and which player would they trade for him since they don't pick until the third round

We could use a quarterback.

Requiem
03-03-2010, 08:37 AM
Cutler picks is ours, second rounder is Tampa Bay's for Gaines Adam who passed on. Third round wouldn't be sufficient this year, and I'm trying to think of a player on their team that would add in the value to compensate for Marshall's worth. If a player did accompany him, I'd have to suspect a future pick no less than the second-round as well.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 08:37 AM
Very, very, very unlikely but how about Olsen and picks?


Olsen unhappy with hiring of Martz, wants a trade
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 9:59 AM ET

New Chicago Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz has signaled that he doesn't think tight end Greg Olsen is a good fit in his offense, noting that he believes a tight end's responsibility is to block while the Bears have been sending out signals that they want to sign tight end Brandon Manumaleuna.

It turns out the feeling is mutual.

Peggy Kusinski of NBC Chicago reports that friends of Olsen say he was not happy about the hiring of Martz, and that he quietly sent his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, into "trade request" mode. According to Kusinski, the Arizona Cardinals and New England Patriots may be interested.

Olsen led the Bears in catches (60) and touchdowns (eight) in 2009.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/olsen-unhappy-with-hiring-of-martz-wants-a-trade/

jhns
03-03-2010, 08:38 AM
It would make sense that they are at least looking into getting Marshall. They just invested a ton in a QB that didn't live up to expectations. Getting him some good weapons could help that problem.

I don't want to see Marshall go but the Bears wouldn't be a bad team to trade him to. At least they would likely be forced to trade us a good player since they don't have any good picks. I really don't want to see Marshall go for picks(unless those picks get us Bradford or Sue, which isn't happening).

Cool Breeze
03-03-2010, 08:40 AM
It's safe to say this won't be the last time we hear talk about the Bears acquiring Marshall.

Probably cause Florio throws **** at the wall to see if it sticks.

strafen
03-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 10:45 AM ET

[QUOTE]Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall says he's willing to stay in Denver this year, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen says he wants to keep Marshall and Broncos coach Josh McDaniels thinks it can work.

And yet hardly anyone seems to think Marshall will be a Bronco in 2010.
That seems to be the concensus around here too

Bears quarterback Jay Cutler had a good rapport with Marshall when they were teammates in Denver, and new Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz would love to add a talented wide receiver to the offense.And won't they love to have him! ;)

I don't want to lose Marshall and force us to have to draft an extra WR when we could use all the help we can get in some other areas.
That said, the bears don't have enough to offer to get Marshall...

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Zack Bowman, Olin Kreutz, and a 2011 first round draft pick.

Cool Breeze
03-03-2010, 08:42 AM
Cutler picks is ours, second rounder is Tampa Bay's for Gaines Adam who passed on. Third round wouldn't be sufficient this year, and I'm trying to think of a player on their team that would add in the value to compensate for Marshall's worth. If a player did accompany him, I'd have to suspect a future pick no less than the second-round as well.

Olsen, 2010 3rd, 2010 4th, 2nd 2011

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Getting Olsen would be stupid, Mcdaniels doesn't use recieving TEs nearly as much as Olsen wants to.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 08:44 AM
Very, very, very unlikely but how about Olsen and picks?


Olsen unhappy with hiring of Martz, wants a trade
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 9:59 AM ET

New Chicago Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz has signaled that he doesn't think tight end Greg Olsen is a good fit in his offense, noting that he believes a tight end's responsibility is to block while the Bears have been sending out signals that they want to sign tight end Brandon Manumaleuna.

It turns out the feeling is mutual.

Peggy Kusinski of NBC Chicago reports that friends of Olsen say he was not happy about the hiring of Martz, and that he quietly sent his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, into "trade request" mode. According to Kusinski, the Arizona Cardinals and New England Patriots may be interested.

Olsen led the Bears in catches (60) and touchdowns (eight) in 2009.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/olsen-unhappy-with-hiring-of-martz-wants-a-trade/

the broncos don't need another receiving TE....

Ray Finkle
03-03-2010, 08:45 AM
Olsen is a more consistant Sheffler....

If they could flip Olsen for a 1st/2nd and then trade that and their third, I'd do it.

strafen
03-03-2010, 08:45 AM
Getting Olsen would be stupid, Mcdaniels doesn't use recieving TEs nearly as much as Olsen wants to.Unless he would be getting rid of Scheffler, still not a good move...

yerner
03-03-2010, 08:47 AM
Olsen ain't yielding anything close to a first or second rounder. Average receiving tight ends are a dime a dozen.

Ray Finkle
03-03-2010, 08:48 AM
Olsen ain't yielding anything close to a first or second rounder. Average receiving tight ends are a dime a dozen.

true but there are a lot of stupid GM's.....

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 08:51 AM
Olsen was pretty much their entire offense last season and was obviously Cutler's "go to" guy in key situations (both on and off the field, judging by the pics floating around the Net). He seemed to be the only guy that was consistently in the right place at the right time. They'd be absolutely insane to let him go.

Br0nc0Buster
03-03-2010, 08:53 AM
There isnt anyone on the Bears roster that I would trade Marshall for

I used to think Marshall was as good as gone, but I am starting to think it is very likely he stays in Denver
Not sure any team is gonna wanna part with their 1st rounder for him

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 08:55 AM
Unless he would be getting rid of Scheffler, still not a good move...

No, he never has, no TE has ever topped 50 receptions in a Mcdaniels offense so I doubt Olsen would want to be the next guy to go under 50 catches - if he won't do it in Chicago why would he want to in Denver? Besides he is not a very good blocker which you have to be in this system.

bronco610
03-03-2010, 09:01 AM
Olsen was pretty much their entire offense last season and was obviously Cutler's "go to" guy in key situations (both on and off the field, judging by the pics floating around the Net). He seemed to be the only guy that was consistently in the right place at the right time. They'd be absolutely insane to let him go.

Mike Martz....... Insane.......... Works for me. ;D

Rabb
03-03-2010, 09:03 AM
it makes zero sense as many have pointed out, we don't want future picks and they have nothing else to give us equal value

Chicago really put themselves in a hole with the trade last year, they basically have to either NAIL their scouting in this year's draft or spend a lot of dough

probably both

strafen
03-03-2010, 09:04 AM
No, he never has, no TE has ever topped 50 receptions in a Mcdaniels offense so I doubt Olsen would want to be the next guy to go under 50 catches - if he won't do it in Chicago why would he want to in Denver? Besides he is not a very good blocker which you have to be in this system.Scheffler is the same type player.
But the most important thing in my mind is that we don't need to trade Marshall to get players we really don't need in exchange.

Crushaholic
03-03-2010, 09:07 AM
I'd probably take Tommie Harris, even with his injury issues. The guy is a beast, when he's playing...

underrated29
03-03-2010, 09:09 AM
total crap but maybe a 3 team trade.


bears- get marshall and pick
Ariz-get olsen and pick
den- get boldin and future pick


Obvioulsy, that wouldnt be it, but maybe something close... AZ could def use Olsen at TE, the bears could def use marshall and we could def replace him with boldin.

Taco John
03-03-2010, 09:11 AM
It would have to be a three team deal. Chicago doesn't have the juice that we need.

Mediator12
03-03-2010, 09:13 AM
I'd probably take Tommie Harris, even with his injury issues. The guy is a beast, when he's playing...

He does not fit the 3-4 for the value. What is he going to play, DE? No, even then you take away what he does best, penetrate and cause havoc along the DL. Plus, he is not good at the POA versus the run when playing UT. Playing a 3-4 DE would not be pretty.

Irish Stout
03-03-2010, 09:17 AM
I would do Marshall for Knox, their 3rd and 5th and their 2011 second.

In other words, not gonna happen.

I also like underrated's threeway, but doesn't quite seem like enough meat on the table.

Mediator12
03-03-2010, 09:18 AM
total crap but maybe a 3 team trade.


bears- get marshall and pick
Ariz-get olsen and pick
den- get boldin and future pick


Obvioulsy, that wouldnt be it, but maybe something close... AZ could def use Olsen at TE, the bears could def use marshall and we could def replace him with boldin.

Man, that is really well thought out ;D Rep, dude.

Most trades are only decent on the surface, that one really could happen IMHO. This will be a very wierd offseason. You really could see a few of these 3 team trades happen. The only thing that is not there is if CHI has enough Trade value with Olsen. He is going to be valued 2 rounds beneath the other two minimally. They also do not have the ammunition in this years draft. It would make it tough for sure, but nicely done nonetheless.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-03-2010, 09:18 AM
1) the bears have nothing to give us. Nothing
2) Even if they did, id avoid this for the potential horrid PR disaster. If Marshall wound up in chicago and lit it up with Cutler, the broncos would look horrendously stupid.
3) Just sign brandon

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 09:19 AM
I would do Marshall for Knox, their 3rd and 5th and their 2011 second.

In other words, not gonna happen.

I also like underrated's threeway, but doesn't quite seem like enough meat on the table.

wow! gayest sounding post ever! :thanku:

bowtown
03-03-2010, 09:19 AM
I would love to see us get the Bears 2011 1st and 3rd. Would give us tons of amo to get Locker.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 09:20 AM
http://broncotalk.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/cutlervschargers2006.jpg

Irish Stout
03-03-2010, 09:26 AM
wow! gayest sounding post ever! :thanku:

You think the threeway is gay? Wouldn't it be fabulous though if we could could get behind a man to man to man exchange with some juicy picks to leave everyone satisfied. Orton might enjoy tossing balls to a new receiver named Boldin.






* now the gayest!

strafen
03-03-2010, 09:26 AM
1) the bears have nothing to give us. Nothing
2) Even if they did, id avoid this for the potential horrid PR disaster. If Marshall wound up in chicago and lit it up with Cutler, the broncos would look horrendously stupid.
3) Just sign brandonYup, Marshall in Chicago hooking up with Cutler will spell disaster for us. Good point.
The pressure on us to win in the post-season would be paramount.
I personally wouldn't want that to happen. Let Cutler prove his worth on his own, let's not give him any help that coukd come back to haunt us for years to come...

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 09:26 AM
You think the threeway is gay? Wouldn't it be fabulous though if we could could get behind a man to man to man exchange with some juicy picks to leave everyone satisfied. Orton might enjoy tossing balls to a new receiver named Boldin.






* now the gayest!

bwahaha:curtsey:!

:strong:

Popps
03-03-2010, 09:27 AM
We could use a quarterback.

They're not going to let Cutler go. He's their insurance policy in case Hanie doesn't pan out.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 09:28 AM
LOL at Olsen!!! No No No No way we trade Marshall for any TE not named Antonio Gates, Jason Witten, etc etc.

If Chicago wants Marshall the will have to offer us a 3rd this yr, and a first and 3rd next yr. Something like that maybe it happens.

Br0nc0Buster
03-03-2010, 09:30 AM
You think the threeway is gay? Wouldn't it be fabulous though if we could could get behind a man to man to man exchange with some juicy picks to leave everyone satisfied. Orton might enjoy tossing balls to a new receiver named Boldin.






* now the gayest!

well when you put it that way its hard to say no
A new receiver would help Orton peak

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 09:34 AM
Man, that is really well thought out ;D Rep, dude.

Most trades are only decent on the surface, that one really could happen IMHO. This will be a very wierd offseason. You really could see a few of these 3 team trades happen. The only thing that is not there is if CHI has enough Trade value with Olsen. He is going to be valued 2 rounds beneath the other two minimally. They also do not have the ammunition in this years draft. It would make it tough for sure, but nicely done nonetheless.

Really?!? I thought the post was pretty insane. Aside from the very basic concept of a three team trade, the actual proposal he presented couldn't be further from reality IMO. Really look at it. The Bears would essentially be giving up Olsen and a pick that would be no better than the 3rd round this year and they'd be getting back Marshall PLUS another pick?!? Insanity. I can't even contemplate the rest of that scenario because that part is so insane. You'd either have to include a guy like Tommie Harris or pretty much their entire 2011 draft (which may not even happen) for me to even consider it.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 09:34 AM
LOL at Olsen!!! No No No No way we trade Marshall for any TE not named Antonio Gates, Jason Witten, etc etc.


Even in the very unlikely event something were to transpire it wouldn't be for Olsen straight up so I'm not sure why you'd frame it this way.

TailgateNut
03-03-2010, 09:36 AM
They're not going to let Cutler go. He's their insurance policy in case Hanie doesn't pan out.


As IF......:spit:



in addition Marshall may want to go to a city which doesn't have any major gang activity. His days may be numbered!



<ducking for cover>

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 09:41 AM
WTF would Denver want a Scheffler clone???

When they have one on their roster already who we can pay $1.2m this year and keep plus keep a potential All-Pro WR.

Chicago can go and ****. They have nothing on their roster or on their draft charts that comes anywhere near Marshall's value bar Cutler and wtf would they trade him.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 09:47 AM
I think Michael David Smith used Woody Paige to write this article.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 09:52 AM
As IF......:spit:



in addition Marshall may want to go to a city which doesn't have any major gang activity. His days may be numbered!



<ducking for cover>


Yeah...Chicago would be the place to go if you want to escape gang activity...


:Broncos:

rmsanger
03-03-2010, 09:56 AM
Olsen is garbage... He could barely keep his footing in the endzone and dropped at least 4 TD passes from Cutty.

pass

TonyR
03-03-2010, 09:56 AM
WTF would Denver want a Scheffler clone???


I agree this is very unlikely for many reasons, money being a major one, but I think Olsen is better than Scheffler.

azbroncfan
03-03-2010, 09:58 AM
Chicago is out of ammo to keep trading.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 10:03 AM
Even in the very unlikely event something were to transpire it wouldn't be for Olsen straight up so I'm not sure why you'd frame it this way.

Mostly because you were talking about picks next yr which are generally valued 1-2 spots lower. So a 2nd rounder next yr, worth only like a late 3rd mid 4th this yr. The value decreases when you have to wait.

So Olson in the first yr would be valued at a first round pick to make this deal even come close. IMO he's not. You can find TE as good as him in draft IMO. Especially since Mcdaniels likes blocking TE a bit more the receiving ones.

So if Olson was included his value at most a low 2nd to 3rd round. Sure he went higher but it doesn't matter because he hasn't made a huge splash. Plus he plays a position that is not considered worthy of a whole lot of first round picks. What maybe 1 a yr in first?

So it would be more like Olson this yr, and a first and 3rd next yr. Why? because I don't feel Broncos would put a first round value on Olson.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 10:05 AM
SO maybe Olson as the 3rd round value, but we still need a first round pick. That's my point TonyR. Either that or Olson this yr, if team liked that player obviously, and then a 2nd and a 3rd next yr. Maybe that would work but really that would be Olson, 3rd, 4th for Marshall because when you wait for picks they aren't as valuable.

Florida_Bronco
03-03-2010, 10:10 AM
Olsen was pretty much their entire offense last season and was obviously Cutler's "go to" guy in key situations (both on and off the field, judging by the pics floating around the Net). He seemed to be the only guy that was consistently in the right place at the right time. They'd be absolutely insane to let him go.

Not only would it be insane because they'd lose their major offensive weapon, but moving Jay Cutler's butt buddy would probably result in emo Jay rearing his ugly head again and demanding a trade. :wiggle:

This could be interesting.

jhns
03-03-2010, 10:29 AM
Chicago can go and ****. They have nothing on their roster or on their draft charts that comes anywhere near Marshall's value bar Cutler and wtf would they trade him.

It would be great if we could trade for Cutler. I want to keep Marshall though. Maybe we can give them Orton and a 5th for Cutler, two firsts, and a third. After all, people here claim Orton did just as good as Cutler here while doing a lot better than Cutler in Chicago. They seem to not care about their high picks so we can just have their first for 4 straight years.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 10:39 AM
It would be great if we could trade for Cutler. I want to keep Marshall though. Maybe we can give them Orton and a 5th for Cutler, two firsts, and a third. After all, people here claim Orton did just as good as Cutler here while doing a lot better than Cutler in Chicago. They seem to not care about their high picks so we can just have their first for 4 straight years.

see, I want to point out that this single post will derail the entire thread

*edit* removed my other comment, I am just putting you back on ignore instead

jhns
03-03-2010, 10:51 AM
see, I want to point out that this single post will derail the entire thread

God you are a douche

Really? The 4th comment about Cutler is what will derail the thread? Not the talk about Marshall getting killed, the talk about Cutler being a baby, or the crying about my post? Being the 4th one to talk about a trade involving Cutler is what did it?


*edit* removed my other comment, I am just putting you back on ignore instead

Removing your other comment is kind of worthless when I already quoted you. Why would any of you take me off ignore in the first place though? I hear this a lot. If you couldn't handle my posts at some other point, what makes you think they are suddenly going to be something you want to read now? Instead of crying about it, why not use your brain to begin with? Doesn't that sound like a better idea McSensitive?

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 10:51 AM
Forte Hester Knox for BM

TonyR
03-03-2010, 10:52 AM
SO maybe Olson as the 3rd round value, but we still need a first round pick. That's my point TonyR. Either that or Olson this yr, if team liked that player obviously, and then a 2nd and a 3rd next yr. Maybe that would work but really that would be Olson, 3rd, 4th for Marshall because when you wait for picks they aren't as valuable.

Agree it's not likely to happen. I think Olsen is worth a 2nd to a lot of teams but probably not to Denver. And if Denver wants to rid themselves of Marshall they may be willing to settle for less than we're hoping.

Paladin
03-03-2010, 10:53 AM
This message is hidden because jhns is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

Just crazy..........

Archer81
03-03-2010, 10:53 AM
Hester, Olsen (why not?), Harris, 3rd round 2010, 2nd round 2011.

Its only fair, IMO.

:Broncos:

Dagmar
03-03-2010, 10:59 AM
Give them Marshall and Scheffler for Hester and the rest of their draft...

http://forum.followfollow.com/customheaders/weeboogie.gif

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 11:07 AM
In other news, thatonedenvermooseguy wants a Ferrari. However, he doesn't have the money to pay for it.

Still, some ****ing moron from the Chicago Sun Times wagered a steak dinner that, in spite of every obstacle that is obvious and huge to overcome, thatonedenvermooseguy will be driving a new Ferrari by the time NFL camps open.

When you can't find facts, just make **** up. Good god.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 11:10 AM
In other news, thatonedenvermooseguy wants a Ferrari. However, he doesn't have the money to pay for it.

Still, some ****ing moron from the Chicago Sun Times wagered a steak dinner that, in spite of every obstacle that is obvious and huge to overcome, thatonedenvermooseguy will be driving a new Ferrari by the time NFL camps open.

When you can't find facts, just make **** up. Good god.

bingo...somehwere Woody Paige contributed to this article

Mediator12
03-03-2010, 11:13 AM
Really?!? I thought the post was pretty insane. Aside from the very basic concept of a three team trade, the actual proposal he presented couldn't be further from reality IMO. Really look at it. The Bears would essentially be giving up Olsen and a pick that would be no better than the 3rd round this year and they'd be getting back Marshall PLUS another pick?!? Insanity. I can't even contemplate the rest of that scenario because that part is so insane. You'd either have to include a guy like Tommie Harris or pretty much their entire 2011 draft (which may not even happen) for me to even consider it.

The value is the only problem, as it does not say what value the picks have. Otherwise, let's look at what happens:

1. Marshall wants paid and will not get it here this year. Boldin Wants paid and will not get it from ARI. Olsen Now wants out of Mike Martz's offense. So, all 3 already are in play for trades.

2. For CHI to get Marshall in this, they have to give up more in pick value than they currently have available in this draft. I think they do not have the assets to manufacture this caliber of trade since they have absolutely zero left of the Gaines Adams trade (Total head scratcher BTW). They lost the player and the pick. Plus, they need a LT since they let pace go.

However, teams will really value next years Draft picks as they anticipate a Rookie Signing bonus ceiling much lower than this years contracts. They would have to include their 2011 top picks to make it work. Hell, they could do that since it might be the current regimes last year and they are gambling with house money if they get fired. So, while it seems difficult to get value, they might just have it if you look at their situation. They will be ready to mortgage the future for now, including taking a HUGE risk on Marsahll not screwing up the PCP, because they are out the door if they do not win right now.

3. ARI could use a TE with Leinart and change their offense without Warner. They have 2 young WR's to replace Boldin in Breaston and Doucet and Might keep transitioning more towards being balanced on offense without Warner running the show. It would be a great deal for them , and they save cash. Plus, they could get the Bears number one next year.

4. DEN has to get adequate value for Marshall after the Cutler Fiasco last year. I think they got the value they needed For Jay, but they need something Tangible this year outside of future Picks. Boldin is the same style Player Marshall is. Getting Boldin would allow them to take future picks in return or lesser picks this year. He fits the McDaniels offense and would be right at home.

5. CHI gets screwed on the deal IMHO, but they are desperate to win and will do it if they can. They still need an OL to make that passing AND running offense work. Sure they get the skill players Martz wants, but they might not get the results they need immediately to win.

All in all, It makes sense of the situation to me.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 11:18 AM
Give them Marshall and Scheffler for Hester and the rest of their draft...

http://forum.followfollow.com/customheaders/weeboogie.gif

How about Marshal and Scheff, for Hester a 5th rounder, and next yrs first.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 11:20 AM
My worry with a guy like Boldin is he plays crazy, gets injured quite a bit. You wonder how many top flight yrs he has. I love him as a player though.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Plus, they need a LT...


The Bears franchise could be in BIG trouble. They don't have the ammo to get a LT or skill/WR help for Cutler. I really wonder what their plan is, assuming they have one.

TailgateNut
03-03-2010, 11:25 AM
The Bears franchise could be in BIG trouble. They don't have the ammo to get a LT or skill/WR help for Cutler. I really wonder what their plan is, assuming they have one.

Their plan WAS Cutler.Hilarious!

Rabb
03-03-2010, 11:26 AM
Their plan WAS Cutler.Hilarious!

it's fairly awesome to watch unfold, all credit to them if they can make it work with the hand they dealt themselves

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 11:28 AM
5. CHI gets screwed on the deal IMHO, but they are desperate to win and will do it if they can. They still need an OL to make that passing AND running offense work. Sure they get the skill players Martz wants, but they might not get the results they need immediately to win.

I think we're talking about 2 different things here.

I'm talking about the deal itself and how it affects Chicago whereas I think you're talking about the state of their team overall regardless of the trade. Two VERY different concepts.

Think about it this way. In the scenarios we're presenting here, they'd be giving up Olsen + MAYBE next year's first rounder for Marshall and a pick back. How is that NOT in their favor, even if you went further and threw in another pick this year that they'd have to part with? Sure, they need OLine help now and this trade won't help them there. But it won't hurt them either. They're not selecting in the first two rounds as it is, so they're not going to get a top prospect and are going to have to go to FA whether such a trade happens or not.

yerner
03-03-2010, 11:29 AM
I think they plan on playing Chris Williams at left tackle. He took over after Pace went out with a groin injury and played pretty well.

Mediator12
03-03-2010, 11:37 AM
I think we're talking about 2 different things here.

I'm talking about the deal itself and how it affects Chicago whereas I think you're talking about the state of their team overall regardless of the trade. Two VERY different concepts.

Think about it this way. In the scenarios we're presenting here, they'd be giving up Olsen + MAYBE next year's first rounder for Marshall and a pick back. How is that NOT in their favor, even if you went further and threw in another pick this year that they'd have to part with? Sure, they need OLine help now and this trade won't help them there. But it won't hurt them either. They're not selecting in the first two rounds as it is, so they're not going to get a top prospect and are going to have to go to FA whether such a trade happens or not.

I do not think they will get a pick back unless its a late rounder. They would have to give up the third this year and the First next year to do it though. Olsen just does not have the value that Marshall and Boldin hold.

Basically, they would get screwed in pick values any way you make it. It is not like they are going to get back a 5th this year in this trade unless they give up more future picks for it.

Overall, they have to give up much more pick value to make this work. They have to sell their future to make it work, because they are teh ones desperate to win. ARI and DEN do not have to pull the trigger on those guys unless they get a real favorable deal each.

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Plus where on earth would Marshall fit into their max $25m up front money this year considering Peppers would want near $20m of it???

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 11:42 AM
I do not think they will get a pick back unless its a late rounder. They would have to give up the third this year and the First next year to do it though. Olsen just does not have the value that Marshall and Boldin hold.

Basically, they would get screwed in pick values any way you make it. It is not like they are going to get back a 5th this year in this trade unless they give up more future picks for it.

Overall, they have to give up much more pick value to make this work. They have to sell their future to make it work, because they are teh ones desperate to win. ARI and DEN do not have to pull the trigger on those guys unless they get a real favorable deal each.

Exactly. We're now moving further and further away from the original 3 team trade post that you went out of your way to praise and rep. That was my point all along. While the pure concept of the 3 team trade was on point, the compensation proposed was WAAY off.

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Denver Broncos needs =

Picks, picks and more picks
Internal OL
3-4 DL
ILB
QB
CB
plus a WR if Marshall goes.

Now someone tell me wtf the Bears fit into any of the categories above that would upgrade our team???

Kreutz is done, Hester is a joke, no CB's worth a ****, ILB is done, no-one on their line would beat out McBean or Peterson and I'm ****ing serious about that.

Cutler wont be dealt, their 1st pick is in the 3rd rd, and they dont have a WR worth a ****, everyone of them would be behind Gaffney and Royal, infact Stokes would push them for the 3rd spot.

The Bears are one minging team with less talent than us on their roster.

underrated29
03-03-2010, 11:56 AM
Exactly. We're now moving further and further away from the original 3 team trade post that you went out of your way to praise and rep. That was my point all along. While the pure concept of the 3 team trade was on point, the compensation proposed was WAAY off.


Yes, but it was also just a quick thought i had. Not something I sat down for hours to complete. Besides if any person from a message board actually came up with a 3 team trade and it happened. he deserves a medal or a job.

I didnt specify pick amounts or anything just purely something close.


You could even look at one like this...


bears- get AZ 2nd, marshall
AZ-get olsen and briggs
DEN- get boldin and AZ 3rd.

So the bears give up briggs and olsen, but get a WR they need and a 2nd rdr for LT.

Az- give up boldin and 2nd and 3rd, but get Olsen and Briggs who can replace dansby

Den- we get boldin and their 3rd.


Of course this will never happen, and probably a 3 team swing between them wont either. But on paper it looks to make sense. Or atleast a lot more sense then Marshall will end up a bear, i bet you a steak dinner.

underrated29
03-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Denver Broncos needs =

Picks, picks and more picks
Internal OL
3-4 DL
ILB
QB
CB
plus a WR if Marshall goes.

Now someone tell me wtf the Bears fit into any of the categories above that would upgrade our team???

Kreutz is done, Hester is a joke, no CB's worth a ****, ILB is done, no-one on their line would beat out McBean or Peterson and I'm ****ing serious about that.

Cutler wont be dealt, their 1st pick is in the 3rd rd, and they dont have a WR worth a ****, everyone of them would be behind Gaffney and Royal, infact Stokes would push them for the 3rd spot.

The Bears are one minging team with less talent than us on their roster.



I agree with all of this.

ChSuperStar
03-03-2010, 11:59 AM
Chicago is not getting marshall, whether it be a two, three or four team trade.

End of thread.

ChSuperStar
03-03-2010, 12:03 PM
Yes, but it was also just a quick thought i had. Not something I sat down for hours to complete. Besides if any person from a message board actually came up with a 3 team trade and it happened. he deserves a medal or a job.

I didnt specify pick amounts or anything just purely something close.


You could even look at one like this...


bears- get AZ 2nd, marshall
AZ-get olsen and briggs
DEN- get boldin and AZ 3rd.

So the bears give up briggs and olsen, but get a WR they need and a 2nd rdr for LT.

Az- give up boldin and 2nd and 3rd, but get Olsen and Briggs who can replace dansby

Den- we get boldin and their 3rd.


Of course this will never happen, and probably a 3 team swing between them wont either. But on paper it looks to make sense. Or atleast a lot more sense then Marshall will end up a bear, i bet you a steak dinner.

Can i say denver will be raped if this happens ? Who on the world, who is a denver fan can come up with such a stupid trade ? We give up marshall and get boldin who will never play 16 games in his career again.. along with a 3rd rounder. What are you nuts ?

underrated29
03-03-2010, 12:13 PM
ummm superstar.........

When did i propose that I wanted this to happen? Furthermore say it would likely happen? Or even state that it should happen?

.........................Yes, thats right. I did not.

I merely came up with a situation that on paper seems to be reasonable for all three teams. Kinda like speculating that we should take Sam bradford at 11, or Brandon Graham, or dez bryant, or anyone else that has been brought up.

No one said they are the players we must draft. or anything else....

Instead of asking who is nuts, try reading a post completely.

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 12:46 PM
It's hard to imagine CHI being able to acquire Marshall. Who's the NFL source? Jay Cutler in his new role of mover and shaker?

Rabb
03-03-2010, 12:50 PM
with the news of the tender, he is going to Baltimore...book it

they (Ravens) have the best scenario for themselves to get this done, they would have drafted a WR anyhow 1st

Dedhed
03-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Wow, you'd think JC would have talked to his drinking buddy before deciding to hire Martz.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Wow, you'd think JC would have talked to his drinking buddy before deciding to hire Martz.


Drinking buddy? Come on man, they ****. F buddies. Who happen to drink and play football together. Sure sure, Olsen is married but its obvious JC and GO are on the down low.


:Broncos:

broncswin
03-03-2010, 12:58 PM
Chicago is out of ammo to keep trading.

wonder if they are thinking WTF did we do...they have a qb who they though was great...but then found out he was average and needed quite a bit of help around him...now they have no ammo to go get that help...did we see this coming----YES!:yayaya:

TDmvp
03-03-2010, 01:00 PM
If we trade the known in a WR who is great to draft another Wr who could bust we deserve to suck ...

broncswin
03-03-2010, 01:03 PM
If we trade the known in a WR who is great to draft another Wr who could bust we deserve to suck ...

There for a while, I was in favor of trading BM, but I have made a total 180...I think this guy gets his money and performs brilliantly on the field, while staying out of trouble...we gotta sign this guy, or get a proven wr + more for him...which means that we better just sign BMarsh:thumbsup:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 01:11 PM
It's hard to imagine CHI being able to acquire Marshall. Who's the NFL source? Jay Cutler in his new role of mover and shaker?

Not nice to make fun of his 'beetus like that...

Hamrob
03-03-2010, 02:09 PM
Here's a scenario I just thought of. How about Marshall for Urlacher and Hester?

That would solve our ILB need and Hester could focus on return yards while playing a lesser role at WR.

Plus Orton and Urlacher are buds.

Thoughts?

bowtown
03-03-2010, 02:23 PM
Here's a scenario I just thought of. How about Marshall for Urlacher and Hester?

That would solve our ILB need and Hester could focus on return yards while playing a lesser role at WR.

Plus Orton and Urlacher are buds.

Thoughts?

If Urlacher plays another full season at top form, I'll eat my hat. Guy is cooked. It would not surprise me to see him retire in the next 2 years. It would basically be a Marshall for Hester trade. I'm not interested in that.

Headless Hessian Rider
03-03-2010, 03:33 PM
with the news of the tender, he is going to Baltimore...book it

they (Ravens) have the best scenario for themselves to get this done, they would have drafted a WR anyhow 1st

well they can have T.O and draft another promosing Wr with there first pick for the same kind of money as brandon wants to receive.. so i still think he will end up with us. or we get more than the first in another kind of trade...

Rohirrim
03-03-2010, 03:40 PM
with the news of the tender, he is going to Baltimore...book it

they (Ravens) have the best scenario for themselves to get this done, they would have drafted a WR anyhow 1st

That works for me. We could take Dan Williams at 11 and Benn or Tate at 25. ;D

strafen
03-03-2010, 03:45 PM
Here's a scenario I just thought of. How about Marshall for Urlacher and Hester?

That would solve our ILB need and Hester could focus on return yards while playing a lesser role at WR.

Plus Orton and Urlacher are buds.

Thoughts?No way.
I take my chances with draft picks, plus McDaniels will not put himself in a situation where the two top offensive weapons the Broncos had when he came in are now playing together in Chicago.
That's a bad mojo for McDaniels...

lostknight
03-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Urlacher's injury history is bad juju. Not the sort of thing we want to be involved with.

That being said, as I understand it, the terms of the tender today pretty much make it near impossible for the Bears to pull off a trade.

errand
03-03-2010, 05:59 PM
We could use a quarterback.

Yeah, I hear they got a franchise QB....he's thrown for 44 INT's the past two seasons combined and has lost 29 of 53 NFL starts, and hasn't led nary a team to the playoffs, but he does throw the ball hard and far.

broncswin
03-03-2010, 06:11 PM
Yeah, I hear they got a franchise QB....he's thrown for 44 INT's the past two seasons combined and has lost 29 of 53 NFL starts, and hasn't led nary a team to the playoffs, but he does throw the ball hard and far.

oh no you didnt

Br0nc0Buster
03-03-2010, 06:16 PM
"You guys talking about me?"

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/jay%20cutler" target="_blank"><img src="http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu339/waynebrady007/pg2_a_cutler_600.jpg" border="0" alt="jay cutler Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

chaz
03-03-2010, 06:22 PM
That works for me. We could take Dan Williams at 11 and Benn or Tate at 25. ;D

Roh-you're really ok with trading Marshall for Benn or Tate straight up?? That is robbery.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 06:43 PM
"You guys talking about me?"

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/jay%20cutler" target="_blank"><img src="http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu339/waynebrady007/pg2_a_cutler_600.jpg" border="0" alt="jay cutler Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>


We should have known he would not have made it here at QB. the hair is simply hideous and magnifies the magnus doofus factor.

:Broncos:

theAPAOps5
03-03-2010, 08:40 PM
We could use a quarterback.

So can Chicago! :wave:

BroncoMan4ever
03-04-2010, 12:39 AM
We could use a quarterback.

who's their backup QB, because their starter sucks ass?

ZONA
03-04-2010, 12:57 AM
The Bears want Marshall, so what. I want a million dollars, aint gonna happen.

Blueflame
03-04-2010, 01:12 AM
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 10:45 AM ET

Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall says he's willing to stay in Denver this year, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen says he wants to keep Marshall and Broncos coach Josh McDaniels thinks it can work.

And yet hardly anyone seems to think Marshall will be a Bronco in 2010.

The biggest question is which team would be the best landing spot for Marshall, and Neil Hayes of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that it could be the Bears. Hayes writes that Bears GM Jerry Angelo's comments about wide receiver not being a ''need'' position are viewed by many as a smoke screen, and that one NFL source wagered a steak dinner on Marshall being in a Bears uniform when camp opens.

We're not sure whether Hayes accepted the wager, or whether the Sun-Times allows its reporters to wager dinners with sources, but the bottom line is that the Bears are among the handful of teams that are consistently named as a potential suitor for Marshall's services.

Bears quarterback Jay Cutler had a good rapport with Marshall when they were teammates in Denver, and new Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz would love to add a talented wide receiver to the offense. It's safe to say this won't be the last time we hear talk about the Bears acquiring Marshall.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/rumors-abound-that-bears-want-brandon-marshall/

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/hayes/2080116,CST-SPT-neil03.article

Well DUH... Brandon Marshall can be a game-changing WR. Any team in their right mind should want him. And while the Bears don't have much trade-bait, the acquisition of Marshall would make them a better team than they are now. As losing Marshall would make the Broncos weaker.... IMHO.

BroncoMan4ever
03-04-2010, 04:35 AM
Yes, but it was also just a quick thought i had. Not something I sat down for hours to complete. Besides if any person from a message board actually came up with a 3 team trade and it happened. he deserves a medal or a job.

I didnt specify pick amounts or anything just purely something close.


You could even look at one like this...


bears- get AZ 2nd, marshall
AZ-get olsen and briggs
DEN- get boldin and AZ 3rd.

So the bears give up briggs and olsen, but get a WR they need and a 2nd rdr for LT.

Az- give up boldin and 2nd and 3rd, but get Olsen and Briggs who can replace dansby

Den- we get boldin and their 3rd.


Of course this will never happen, and probably a 3 team swing between them wont either. But on paper it looks to make sense. Or atleast a lot more sense then Marshall will end up a bear, i bet you a steak dinner.

that trade is terrible, Denver would be basically getting anally raped with an 18 inch sand paper and barb wire di!do

the only way the Bears get their hands on Marshall is if they can somehow make some trades to acquire a 1st round pick which they in turn give to us. because realistically they don't have any players we would really be interested in, in exchange for Marshall, minus Hester and he isn't worth a 1st rounder

CEH
03-04-2010, 06:08 AM
Shefter just called CHI the most desparate team in the NFL.
I've said it before the coaching staff is on a very hot seat and it looks like they will go against their old ways and start spending money to salvage their season with the drunk at QB.

TonyR
03-04-2010, 06:09 AM
I'm just throwing shiz out there for fun, but if the report below is true how about getting a 1 for Marshall, using that pick for a need in the draft, and then trading a 3 for Boldin? Just a thought.


Report: Cardinals want a third-round pick for Boldin
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 10:33 PM ET

Cardinals G.M. Rod Graves has made it clear that his team is willing to trade wide receiver Anquan Boldin.

But what would it take to get Boldin out of Arizona?

Michael Lombardi reported on NFL Network that the Cardinals "only want a third-round pick" for Boldin. That's not too high a price for a starting wide receiver.

But, Lombardi said, the big sticking point is whether a team acquiring Boldin will be willing and able to fork over the money necessary to make Boldin happy. In other words, Boldin won't just cost a third-round pick. He'll cost a third-round pick plus a big new contract.

Boldin said after the season ended that he wouldn't request a trade. But the Cardinals may have come to the realization that their offense is just fine without him, and that they ought to get whatever they can for him. If what they can get is a third-round pick, the Cardinals would apparently be fine with that.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/report-cardinals-want-a-third-round-pick-for-boldin/

TonyR
03-04-2010, 06:12 AM
Shefter just called CHI the most desparate team in the NFL.


Yup, I heard that on Mike & Mike this morning and I alluded to it myself yesterday. They are in bad shape with gaping holes on the OL and no 1st or 2nd round pick to address their needs. Between trading for Cutler and Gaines Adams they really emptied the cupboard. And now they have an OC (Martz) who doesn't use the TE and their best offensive skill player is Olsen. What a mess.

jhns
03-04-2010, 06:18 AM
I'm just throwing shiz out there for fun, but if the report below is true how about getting a 1 for Marshall, using that pick for a need in the draft, and then trading a 3 for Boldin? Just a thought.


Report: Cardinals want a third-round pick for Boldin
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 3, 2010 10:33 PM ET

Cardinals G.M. Rod Graves has made it clear that his team is willing to trade wide receiver Anquan Boldin.

But what would it take to get Boldin out of Arizona?

Michael Lombardi reported on NFL Network that the Cardinals "only want a third-round pick" for Boldin. That's not too high a price for a starting wide receiver.

But, Lombardi said, the big sticking point is whether a team acquiring Boldin will be willing and able to fork over the money necessary to make Boldin happy. In other words, Boldin won't just cost a third-round pick. He'll cost a third-round pick plus a big new contract.

Boldin said after the season ended that he wouldn't request a trade. But the Cardinals may have come to the realization that their offense is just fine without him, and that they ought to get whatever they can for him. If what they can get is a third-round pick, the Cardinals would apparently be fine with that.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/report-cardinals-want-a-third-round-pick-for-boldin/

While I wouldn't mind getting him if we lose Marshall, I would much rather just give the big contract he is looking for to Marshall.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 06:22 AM
Shefter just called CHI the most desparate team in the NFL.
I've said it before the coaching staff is on a very hot seat and it looks like they will go against their old ways and start spending money to salvage their season with the drunk at QB.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's just goddamn funny. Remember Jay: You wanted to be in Chicago.

bowtown
03-04-2010, 06:24 AM
While I wouldn't mind getting him if we lose Marshall, I would much rather just give the big contract he is looking for to Marshall.

This.

chrisp
03-04-2010, 06:30 AM
that trade is terrible, Denver would be basically getting anally raped with an 18 inch sand paper and barb wire di!do

the only way the Bears get their hands on Marshall is if they can somehow make some trades to acquire a 1st round pick which they in turn give to us. because realistically they don't have any players we would really be interested in, in exchange for Marshall, minus Hester and he isn't worth a 1st rounder

I think you're being a little hysterical (not to mention graphic - ouch!) about the theoretical trade. From Denver's point of view it is Boldin and a third for Marshall. If you don't think Boldin is as good as Marshall then we get a third to compensate, plus we keep all our picks. Yes Boldin is older and coming off an injury so he's a risk, but he's still a decent player. I'm not sure I like the deal either but but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it amounts to abrasive sodomy of the type you describe.....

However I do agree with you that any scenario which has the Bears getting Marshall is far-fetched - they just don't have the ammunition left. the again, the author of said fantasy trade said himself that he thought it unlikely so ease up on the guy please..... :-)

TonyR
03-04-2010, 06:54 AM
From Denver's point of view it is Boldin and a third for Marshall.

It's actually even better than that. Denver gets a 1st and Boldin and gives up Marshall and a 3rd. I'd rather have Marshall but from a value perspective this is probably a win for the Broncos, particularly considering the fact that they rid themselves of a headache.

TailgateNut
03-04-2010, 07:02 AM
Well DUH... Brandon Marshall can be a game-changing WR. Any team in their right mind should want him. And while the Bears don't have much trade-bait, the acquisition of Marshall would make them a better team than they are now. As losing Marshall would make the Broncos weaker.... IMHO.

When he's not pouting, or injured, or suspended, or benched, or dealing with legal issues.....or.....

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 07:11 AM
Blueflame said: And while the Bears don't have much trade-bait, the acquisition of Marshall would make them a better team than they are now.

Yeah... but... it's a non-starter. They don't have ANY trade bait. They'd have to trade someone just to get a pick to get Marshall, which is like robbing Peter to pay Paul, especially for a team in their situation.

Stupid front office moves are what got them here. What the Bears should do, if they're smart (and I'm not saying that they are) is try to build around pieces they do have and stockpile picks for the coming years. They're going to have a very hard time competing... especially since the quarterback they gave two firsts and a third for is the fourth best QB in the division (assuming Favre comes back).

Rabb
03-04-2010, 08:04 AM
Burger Bill:

"This may be the front runner to land the receiver. The Seahawks have players to trade and Marshall would like to reunite with former Denver assistant coach Jeremy Bates, who is now Seattle's offensive coordinator."

Could we see that #14 pick back?

strafen
03-04-2010, 08:16 AM
Burger Bill:



Could we see that #14 pick back?It's possible.
Seattle also owns the #6 pick overall.
We would be interested in that #14 pick as it will be a position that won't break the bank and still get a good player.

Rabb
03-04-2010, 08:23 AM
It's possible.
Seattle also owns the #6 pick overall.
We would be interested in that #14 pick as it will be a position that won't break the bank and still get a good player.

God if we get the #6 pick, let the games begin

bowtown
03-04-2010, 08:27 AM
Burger Bill:



Could we see that #14 pick back?

Marshall for Alphonso will make me cry. Not sure we can do much better though.

Rabb
03-04-2010, 08:28 AM
Marshall for Alphonso will make me cry.

I was waiting for someone to go there

look, it's history...it's over...let's all just get over it

Smith may still pan out, and we may get an outstanding player with the pick we get in return for Marshall...nobody knows

we can either piss and moan forever or just move on, I am moving on

bowtown
03-04-2010, 08:30 AM
I was waiting for someone to go there

look, it's history...it's over...let's all just get over it

Smith may still pan out, and we may get an outstanding player with the pick we get in return for Marshall...nobody knows

we can either piss and moan forever or just move on, I am moving on

I've been moved on for a long time. Still doesn't help to totally dull the sting.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 09:40 AM
Just a question... has anyone ever heard anything before about Marshall being close to Bates at all? Or is this yet another example of Burger Bill going "That guy was in Denver once... Marshall interested in reuniting!"??

He's the king of such nonsense. I don't think I've ever read anything about him being pals with Bates. I know everyone made a big deal of the Cutler/Bates relationship, but in the end that turned out to be nothing as well.

bowtown
03-04-2010, 09:42 AM
Just a question... has anyone ever heard anything before about Marshall being close to Bates at all? Or is this yet another example of Burger Bill going "That guy was in Denver once... Marshall interested in reuniting!"??

He's the king of such nonsense. I don't think I've ever read anything about him being pals with Bates. I know everyone made a big deal of the Cutler/Bates relationship, but in the end that turned out to be nothing as well.

Actually I think it was the contrary. I seem to remember reports of some huge blowup he and Bates had towards the end of the 2008 season.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 09:43 AM
Actually I think it was the contrary. I seem to remember reports of some huge blowup he and Bates had towards the end of the 2008 season.

I seem to remember that too... but Burger Bill sees a possible narrative (and a possible sandwich) and can't resist.

Rabb
03-04-2010, 09:45 AM
unless he meant that Bates is very aware of what Marshall brings to the table...who knows

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 09:47 AM
unless he meant that Bates is very aware of what Marshall brings to the table...who knows

He might have meant that... but probably would have said that.

He clearly said "Marshall would like to reunite with Bates."

Rabb
03-04-2010, 09:52 AM
yeah good point Moose, who knows with Bill

Play2win
03-04-2010, 10:02 AM
Also, from Seattle's perspective, Getting Brandon Marshal for (what originally was) a 2nd rounder, would seem like a steal.

rastaman
03-04-2010, 01:00 PM
well they can have T.O and draft another promosing Wr with there first pick for the same kind of money as brandon wants to receive.. so i still think he will end up with us. or we get more than the first in another kind of trade...

I was thinking the same possibility of Chicago signing T.O. for one year or two. Another area no one is giving much thought of is how strong Bears WR Devin Aromashodu came on last season and has an excellent to start. Devin has the ideal size of todays protype WR intoday's NFL; he's 6'4-230 pounds and appears to have great hands.

Aromashodu performed very well late in the season and is someone who quarterback Jay Cutler has been publicly endorsing since last summer in training camp. In the Bears’ last four games of the year, Aromashodu caught 22 passes for 282 yards and 4 touchdowns. If the Bears were able to sign T.O., Cutler would then have Aromashodu, Olsen and Knox's weapons under a Martz passing scheme and thats not to shabby of a receiving corp.

And although Hester isn't a polished receiver, teams can't ignore him either, so I'd say Cutler has a pretty good stable of receivers.

Perhaps in 2011 if Marshalll isn't signed long term and the Bears have a 1st round pick to offer up for Brandon...then a deal can be made. But I agree with most posters, in 2010 the Bears have nothing to offer up in draft picks for Marshall.

rastaman
03-04-2010, 01:04 PM
Yup, I heard that on Mike & Mike this morning and I alluded to it myself yesterday. They are in bad shape with gaping holes on the OL and no 1st or 2nd round pick to address their needs. Between trading for Cutler and Gaines Adams they really emptied the cupboard. And now they have an OC (Martz) who doesn't use the TE and their best offensive skill player is Olsen. What a mess.

Chicago will need to address their OL issues thru FA due to not drafting until the 3rd round.

BroncoMan4ever
03-04-2010, 04:02 PM
I think you're being a little hysterical (not to mention graphic - ouch!) about the theoretical trade. From Denver's point of view it is Boldin and a third for Marshall. If you don't think Boldin is as good as Marshall then we get a third to compensate, plus we keep all our picks. Yes Boldin is older and coming off an injury so he's a risk, but he's still a decent player. I'm not sure I like the deal either but but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it amounts to abrasive sodomy of the type you describe.....

However I do agree with you that any scenario which has the Bears getting Marshall is far-fetched - they just don't have the ammunition left. the again, the author of said fantasy trade said himself that he thought it unlikely so ease up on the guy please..... :-)

i am looking at it this way. Boldin is a good receiver and teammate, but in recent seasons has had a lot of trouble staying on the field, add in that of late Breaston has outperformed him. there is a reason the Cards are only asking a 3rd for the guy. add in the contract he wants is in line with what Marshall will ask for anyway.

i just don't think think the equivalent of 2-3rd rounders is worth Marshall.