PDA

View Full Version : Seahawks have had "preliminary" talks with Marshall's agent


TonyR
03-24-2010, 08:40 AM
The Seahawks and Brandon Marshall continue to circle each other like Conan and Bieber.

Seattle doesn't look willing to give up the No. 6 pick overall pick for Marshall, but they are obviously interested after picking up Marshall and his fiancee in a seaplane on March 6.

Pete Carroll admitted Wednesday morning that Seahawks G.M. John Schneider has had "preliminary" discussions with Marshall's agent Kennard McGuire about a possible new contract. That's step one.

Step two is figuring out trade terms the Broncos would accept. Denver says they aren't looking to negotiate, but that defies logic.

Denver wants a first-round pick. If Seattle's No. 14 overall pick was the highest first-rounder they were offered, why wouldn't they negotiate?

The deadline for signing restricted free agents to offer sheets is April 15, but a trade could possibly come closer to the NFL draft.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/24/seahawks-have-had-preliminary-talks-with-marshalls-agent/

ColoradoBuff
03-24-2010, 08:46 AM
as badly as I want Marshall to stay in Denver.....i'd take the 14th at this point and move on.

LonghornBronco
03-24-2010, 08:50 AM
I think the Broncos are right in their approach. By refusing to negotiate they are effectively communicating that they are 100% satisfied with bringing him back. Essentially telling everyone their will be no discount to get him, it's got to be top 5 WR compensation.

tsiguy96
03-24-2010, 08:59 AM
I think the Broncos are right in their approach. By refusing to negotiate they are effectively communicating that they are 100% satisfied with bringing him back. Essentially telling everyone their will be no discount to get him, it's got to be top 5 WR compensation.
well, we arent getting top 5 WR comp. i think dallas gave a 1st 3rd and 6th for roy williams. 1st and 3rd is about the market i would imagine for great WR who actually hit the market.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 09:01 AM
as badly as I want Marshall to stay in Denver.....i'd take the 14th at this point and move on.

I would do that too but the idiots on here claiming it was Alphonso Smith for Marshall would be ****ing insufferable.

14th and more or 6th and we trade back are 2 scenarios that would make me happy.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:01 AM
I don't care what anyone says if we trade Marshall for that 14th pick we gave the Hawks for Smith it's nothing but a epic failure.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 09:04 AM
I don't care what anyone says if we trade Marshall for that 14th pick we gave the Hawks for Smith it's nothing but a epic failure.

I agree, Smith would have to develop into a top 5 corner to make it look close to worthwhile.

The anti-McD brigade if this happened...
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/OMG/1/OMFG-Argh.jpg

BroncoInferno
03-24-2010, 09:05 AM
Step two is figuring out trade terms the Broncos would accept. Denver says they aren't looking to negotiate, but that defies logic.

How does it defy logic? Either a team signs Marshall to a contract Denver is unwilling to match, thus turning their 1st rounder over to Denver--or the Broncos keep Marshall. Guys like this are operating under the erroneous assumption that we HAVE to move him.

BroncoInferno
03-24-2010, 09:08 AM
I don't care what anyone says if we trade Marshall for that 14th pick we gave the Hawks for Smith it's nothing but a epic failure.

Well, it depends on how Smith develops. Your assuming that he will never improve upon his rookie season. There are tons of examples of guys who did precisely that.

meangene
03-24-2010, 09:11 AM
The Broncos are simply being smart negotiators. No way Seattle gives up #6 for him so they have to negotiate a trade with us to get him. The longer we take the hard-line approach, the better deal we hope to negotiate. I'm sure we would take #14 for him but I doubt that has been formally offered. And, since it is not an offer sheet, we can take right up to draft day to obtain the best deal. Since teams like Seattle or Tampa are not going to go the offer sheet route, the tender deadline is of no real relevance to them. The only wild card would be if a team with a later pick signed him to an offer sheet. There has been no indication that any such negotiations have taken place. Also, by waiting this thing out, potential suitors may be able to get Marshall for less money. I see this thing playing out until right before the draft. We have to make teams believe we will be satisfied to keep him even though that is absolutely not the case IMO.

Ray Finkle
03-24-2010, 09:12 AM
I say 14 and a 5th and they can take the turd.

Draft Dan Williams and Iputa (however you spell it) and call it a day.

chex
03-24-2010, 09:13 AM
I don't care what anyone says if we trade Marshall for that 14th pick we gave the Hawks for Smith it's nothing but a epic failure.

Well, wouldn’t we really wind up with two players (Smith & whoever) since we’ll be using the same pick again? We used it as a bargaining chip last year to draft Smith, so if we get it back in a Marshall deal, we’d be using the same pick again.

Gcver2ver3
03-24-2010, 09:13 AM
I don't care what anyone says if we trade Marshall for that 14th pick we gave the Hawks for Smith it's nothing but a epic failure.

it's easy to link the two moves, but really each move should be viewed separately...

the epic fail isn't trading Marshall for the 14th pick...the fail was trading the 14th pick for Alphonso Smith...

and whats done is done...

so at this point whether we keep Marshall or not, the epic fail is already in the books due to the trade for Smith...why make it worse by deciding to turn down a good 1st rounder for a malcontent?...

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:13 AM
I agree, Smith would have to develop into a top 5 corner to make it look close to worthwhile.

The anti-McD brigade if this happened...
The pressure for Smith to preform better is already high enough after getting benched for a guy that was semi-retired. I think adding this on top of it would be a very poor idea. I'm sure you don't think so at all given how you always take the stance that the FO should not be criticized for questionable moves. Most fans have backed off from the initial shock from the Cutler trade, but whatever.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:15 AM
Well, wouldn’t we really wind up with two players (Smith & whoever) since we’ll be using the same pick again? We used it as a bargaining chip last year to draft Smith, so if we get it back in a Marshall deal, we’d be using the same pick again.

No because we would have already had the 14th pick had we not traded it to Seattle. We would be giving up Marshall for Smith.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:20 AM
Well, it depends on how Smith develops. Your assuming that he will never improve upon his rookie season. There are tons of examples of guys who did precisely that.

Marshall is already a pro bowl player/ top 10 if not better at his position. Smith has a long ways to go to make the trade a wash IMO. It's possible but I don't even see him taking playing time away from Goodman and we brought in another player to play nickle for us this season. As of right now I don't see many chances for Smith to get the time to develop.

PRBronco
03-24-2010, 09:28 AM
Oh seriously? Did we trade a first rounder this year to draft Alphonso Smith last year? Why hasn't anyone brought that up before? Do people wish we had that pick back? I'm sorry but this is brand new information. I'm going to go bring it up in other draft related threads.

SoDak Bronco
03-24-2010, 09:30 AM
What are the odds that the Broncos trade Bmarsh now that they had an opportunity to talk to teams face to face? Remember the owners meetings is where Jay Cutler deal got rolling with the bears. I say it is still 70-30 he is traded, but what do I know/

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 09:32 AM
The pressure for Smith to preform better is already high enough after getting benched for a guy that was semi-retired. I think adding this on top of it would be a very poor idea. I'm sure you don't think so at all given how you always take the stance that the FO should not be criticized for questionable moves. Most fans have backed off from the initial shock from the Cutler trade, but whatever.

I never liked the move, I am not going to have a freak out or use the trade to berate the head coach. Alphonso Smith was seen as a very good CB often by experts as 1st round talent. I refuse to write him off after one year like so many others. Sorry if that doesn't fit for you, continue ripping me.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:33 AM
Oh seriously? Did we trade a first rounder this year to draft Alphonso Smith last year? Why hasn't anyone brought that up before? Do people wish we had that pick back? I'm sorry but this is brand new information. I'm going to go bring it up in other draft related threads.

What?

Drek
03-24-2010, 09:36 AM
No because we would have already had the 14th pick had we not traded it to Seattle. We would be giving up Marshall for Smith.

Look at it irregardless of the player taken with the pick.

Last year when Marshall started acting up in camp a lot of people figured we'd be lucky to get a 2010 2nd rounder for him.

Peter King, not the best football writer in the world but also probably not the worst, said this off-season he figured the Broncos would have to settle for a 2nd rounder in exchange for Marshall.

Anquan Boldin was traded for a 3rd and a 4th this off-season.

So if the Broncos trade Marshall for #14 what they really did was trade Marshall for a 2009 early 2nd round pick, i.e. better than what most would expect us to get for him since his little training camp episode last year.

And they got that compensation a year sooner, while still getting an additional productive year out of Marshall.

From a value standpoint getting something sooner is always better than later, and the value Marshall gave in '09 definitely helps to raise the value of the transaction as well.

If you try to pin it entirely on Alphonso Smith the player and not the pick value then it'll always look bad short of Smith becoming an elite CB, but that is because drafting NFL players is similar to buying a new car. Once you drive 'em off the lot you lose a ton of value. Take Kam Wimbley for example. Guy has had 28.5 sacks in 5 years, more than Suggs in that same time frame if I recall, but he got traded for a 3rd round pick. He's not a bust, he's a good starter and productive pass rusher. Taken in the early 1st, traded for an early 3rd.

I'm personally expecting the Broncos to request #14 and Hawthorne in exchange for Marshall. That or #14 and swapping #60 (the 2nd they got from SD) for a later round pick. I'd be cool with either move myself, even though I'd prefer to keep Marshall if he'd be willing to put his money where is mouth is and take a deal that requires him to act like the reformed person he claims to be.

SoDak Bronco
03-24-2010, 09:45 AM
I say 14 and a 5th and they can take the turd.

Draft Dan Williams and Iputa (however you spell it) and call it a day.

I'd Take Rolando McClain or Dan Williams and Pouncy our future ProBowl Center

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:48 AM
I never liked the move, I am not going to have a freak out or use the trade to berate the head coach. Alphonso Smith was seen as a very good CB often by experts as 1st round talent. I refuse to write him off after one year like so many others. Sorry if that doesn't fit for you, continue ripping me.

lol I was really ripping you. You have to be the most sensitive person I have ever came across on a internet message board.

Not everyone is writing him off they just say he has a lot of work to do. I pointed out he has two starters pretty much locked in front of him and we brought in another player that is a proven nickle corner. There isn't a lot of room for playing time for him.

To trade a player that is arguably top 5 at his position with two pro bowl's under his belt already to get the pick back that we gave for Smith would suck regardless who the HC is.

Anyways it's just my opinion but your MO is to dog on players/coaches that are either gone or out of favor with the team. If you don't feel that is correct I'm sorry.

Beantown Bronco
03-24-2010, 09:50 AM
Don't worry. Smith will get plenty of playing time in 2011, after Champ has left the building.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 09:53 AM
Look at it irregardless of the player taken with the pick.

Last year when Marshall started acting up in camp a lot of people figured we'd be lucky to get a 2010 2nd rounder for him.

Peter King, not the best football writer in the world but also probably not the worst, said this off-season he figured the Broncos would have to settle for a 2nd rounder in exchange for Marshall.

Anquan Boldin was traded for a 3rd and a 4th this off-season.

So if the Broncos trade Marshall for #14 what they really did was trade Marshall for a 2009 early 2nd round pick, i.e. better than what most would expect us to get for him since his little training camp episode last year.

And they got that compensation a year sooner, while still getting an additional productive year out of Marshall.

From a value standpoint getting something sooner is always better than later, and the value Marshall gave in '09 definitely helps to raise the value of the transaction as well.

If you try to pin it entirely on Alphonso Smith the player and not the pick value then it'll always look bad short of Smith becoming an elite CB, but that is because drafting NFL players is similar to buying a new car. Once you drive 'em off the lot you lose a ton of value. Take Kam Wimbley for example. Guy has had 28.5 sacks in 5 years, more than Suggs in that same time frame if I recall, but he got traded for a 3rd round pick. He's not a bust, he's a good starter and productive pass rusher. Taken in the early 1st, traded for an early 3rd.

I'm personally expecting the Broncos to request #14 and Hawthorne in exchange for Marshall. That or #14 and swapping #60 (the 2nd they got from SD) for a later round pick. I'd be cool with either move myself, even though I'd prefer to keep Marshall if he'd be willing to put his money where is mouth is and take a deal that requires him to act like the reformed person he claims to be.


Well thought out reasonable way of looking at it. Rep.

SoDak Bronco
03-24-2010, 09:57 AM
Don't worry. Smith will get plenty of playing time in 2011, after Champ has left the building.

Doubt it, but we will see. I hope they can use Phonz in place of Goodmen and keep Champ ballin and doing his thing.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 09:58 AM
lol I was really ripping you. You have to be the most sensitive person I have ever came across on a internet message board.


http://www.malkia.com/Home_Page_tiedostot/yawn.gif

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 09:58 AM
Don't worry. Smith will get plenty of playing time in 2011, after Champ has left the building.

I didn't think anyone was gonna get playing time in 2011!

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 10:04 AM
http://www.malkia.com/Home_Page_tiedostot/yawn.gif

Someone has something to say you don't like? Don't worry there is a GIF for that.

Beantown Bronco
03-24-2010, 10:04 AM
I didn't think anyone was gonna get playing time in 2011!

Hush, you. I have yet to accept that possibility. I've already gone on record that if it does come to pass, the NFL will lose me forever.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 10:05 AM
Anyways it's just my opinion but your MO is to dog on players/coaches that are either gone or out of favor with the team. If you don't feel that is correct I'm sorry.

Prove it then dude. Prove it. I defended Hillis and bashed the people who over valued him. I, like many others believed Cutler's attitude stunk way before Shanahan left and was pleased he is gone and stats proved Orton had a better season. I am on the fence with Marshall, he is a beast, just a beast who could be gone for half a year if he puts another foot wrong. I wish he would sign an incentive laden contract that means he earns really big bucks if he proves to be a grown up. I agree with montrose on Tony Scheffler.

I never got the Richard Quinn pick, a Daniel Graham replacement, that high. I thought giving up a no.1 for Alphonso Smith was a bit much and wish we had 11 and 14 this year.

Just because I don't complain about those picks constantly like mock means I am not objective or in your club. I'll ****ing live sweetness.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 10:07 AM
Someone has something to say you don't like? Don't worry there is a GIF for that.

Aw I try and be entertaining on an internet message board, does that upset you? Is that why you have a picture for your avy, to make a political statement? No, it's to entertain. Why don't you put me on ignore cuteness?

broncswin
03-24-2010, 10:08 AM
Well, it depends on how Smith develops. Your assuming that he will never improve upon his rookie season. There are tons of examples of guys who did precisely that.

Smith played out of position last year...we had a veteran corner who played in the position smith would presumably take over...the guy never got a chance to play true corner...how in the hell should anyone expect to see him come out and blow up on the scene. I for one am glad that McD didn't throw him to the wolves right away...let him get used to the size and speed at this level...Could he have started at corner for us, sure...but I do believe that goodman was the best choice for the spot...Smith is getting groomed, so lets wait to judge...even if we did spend a 1 on him, doesn't mean he should be a superstar right away

Drek
03-24-2010, 10:17 AM
Don't worry. Smith will get plenty of playing time in 2011, after Champ has left the building.
I don't think Champ is going anywhere.

He'll get extended next off-season for good but reasonable money, and around 2013 or so he'll shift to safety alongside McBath.

The NFL is becoming more and more of a passing league. You'll need two cover safeties before long in this league. Champ started his career in Washington under Daryl Green who played 20 years in the NFL, Champ is modeling his career off of Green's. He'll play until his near 40 years old.

The big key to Champ staying here is us becoming a winning organization again. I think we will because I think McDaniels is an elite football mind who has shown all the right things needed to build a winning organization (good FO support in Xanders, knows how to pick his assistants, and isn't going to pass up talent for need in the draft, instead using FA to fill needs and let him go BPA in the draft). As his tenure here goes on he'll mature in many regards, as will our team's implementation of his systems (both offensive and defensive).

If we're winning Champ will absolutely NOT leave Denver.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 10:21 AM
Aw I try and be entertaining on an internet message board, does that upset you? Is that why you have a picture for your avy, to make a political statement? No, it's to entertain. Why don't you put me on ignore cuteness?

Is your ignore feature broken?

mope81
03-24-2010, 11:19 AM
What about Marshall and our 1 for Seattle 6 and 14? They get marshall and move up, so maybe they could target somebody they had their eye on.

Beantown Bronco
03-24-2010, 11:23 AM
What about Marshall and our 1 for Seattle 6 and 14? They get marshall and move up, so maybe they could target somebody they had their eye on.

I'm just guessing here, but I think the list of guys available at #11 but not available at #6 would be pretty small. :clown:

PRBronco
03-24-2010, 11:24 AM
What about Marshall and our 1 for Seattle 6 and 14? They get marshall and move up, so maybe they could target somebody they had their eye on.

This would work for me. You could snag Bulaga (or Berry?) with the 6, and trade back from the 14.

baja
03-24-2010, 11:30 AM
The Broncos are simply being smart negotiators. No way Seattle gives up #6 for him so they have to negotiate a trade with us to get him. The longer we take the hard-line approach, the better deal we hope to negotiate. I'm sure we would take #14 for him but I doubt that has been formally offered. And, since it is not an offer sheet, we can take right up to draft day to obtain the best deal. Since teams like Seattle or Tampa are not going to go the offer sheet route, the tender deadline is of no real relevance to them. The only wild card would be if a team with a later pick signed him to an offer sheet. There has been no indication that any such negotiations have taken place. Also, by waiting this thing out, potential suitors may be able to get Marshall for less money. I see this thing playing out until right before the draft. We have to make teams believe we will be satisfied to keep him even though that is absolutely not the case IMO.



here's the deal - the Broncos hold all the cards. let Seattle offer a contract and we match or trade, easy really.

baja
03-24-2010, 11:37 AM
What?


Ya what the hell are you talking about BRBronco???

crowebomber
03-24-2010, 11:45 AM
here's the deal - the Broncos hold all the cards. let Seattle offer a contract and we match or trade, easy really.

This. The Broncos can sit and wait and in the meantime maybe someone else comes forward with a better deal (Miami with their 12?) and forces Seattle to consider giving up the 6.

Hamrob
03-24-2010, 11:47 AM
Look at it irregardless of the player taken with the pick.

Last year when Marshall started acting up in camp a lot of people figured we'd be lucky to get a 2010 2nd rounder for him.

Peter King, not the best football writer in the world but also probably not the worst, said this off-season he figured the Broncos would have to settle for a 2nd rounder in exchange for Marshall.

Anquan Boldin was traded for a 3rd and a 4th this off-season.

So if the Broncos trade Marshall for #14 what they really did was trade Marshall for a 2009 early 2nd round pick, i.e. better than what most would expect us to get for him since his little training camp episode last year.

And they got that compensation a year sooner, while still getting an additional productive year out of Marshall.

From a value standpoint getting something sooner is always better than later, and the value Marshall gave in '09 definitely helps to raise the value of the transaction as well.

If you try to pin it entirely on Alphonso Smith the player and not the pick value then it'll always look bad short of Smith becoming an elite CB, but that is because drafting NFL players is similar to buying a new car. Once you drive 'em off the lot you lose a ton of value. Take Kam Wimbley for example. Guy has had 28.5 sacks in 5 years, more than Suggs in that same time frame if I recall, but he got traded for a 3rd round pick. He's not a bust, he's a good starter and productive pass rusher. Taken in the early 1st, traded for an early 3rd.

I'm personally expecting the Broncos to request #14 and Hawthorne in exchange for Marshall. That or #14 and swapping #60 (the 2nd they got from SD) for a later round pick. I'd be cool with either move myself, even though I'd prefer to keep Marshall if he'd be willing to put his money where is mouth is and take a deal that requires him to act like the reformed person he claims to be.Spin it anyway you like...getting only a 1 in return for a WR who has had 3 straight 100 catch seasons...is a bad deal (period).

The fact that we are even entertaining it (especially when we have a very average starting QB) is ignorant.

People can say what they want about BM off the field...he produces when he's on it.

The trade for Smith was a huge reach...regardless how he turns out at this point. Trading BM for a 1 is questionable. Getting less than a one is unacceptable.

Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.

Hamrob
03-24-2010, 11:48 AM
here's the deal - the Broncos hold all the cards. let Seattle offer a contract and we match or trade, easy really.Let Seattle worry about getting Bryant at 14...good luck to them.

Rabb
03-24-2010, 11:52 AM
What?

I believe that's what we in the industry call, sarcasm

it's great when you recognize it

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 11:54 AM
I believe that's what we in the industry call, sarcasm

it's great when you recognize it

I've learned to my folly that it is very hard to have sarcasm come across in text.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 11:55 AM
Is your ignore feature broken?

You're the one whining about gifs.

baja
03-24-2010, 11:55 AM
I believe that's what we in the industry call, sarcasm

it's great when you recognize it

Good sarcasm like good art is widely recongnized as such.

TonyR
03-24-2010, 11:56 AM
Spin it anyway you like...getting only a 1 in return for a WR who has had 3 straight 100 catch seasons...is a bad deal (period).


And yet not a single team has signed him to an offer sheet. A bad deal for us is a good deal for them, right? Why hasn't anybody done it? Do teams not want to make good deals?

Beantown Bronco
03-24-2010, 12:02 PM
Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.

They tried that last year and BMarsh and his agent laughed at it. Any other ideas?

misturanderson
03-24-2010, 12:02 PM
Spin it anyway you like...getting only a 1 in return for a WR who has had 3 straight 100 catch seasons...is a bad deal (period).

The fact that we are even entertaining it (especially when we have a very average starting QB) is ignorant.
The endless stream of offers we've received thus far for Marshall says otherwise.

People can say what they want about BM off the field...he produces when he's on it.

That's the issue, his off the field problems can and have impacted his ability to play in games.


Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.

They already tried that. He has to accept that offer, which he won't.

NFLBRONCO
03-24-2010, 12:07 PM
Things will heat up April 16th when teams can offer different trade packages I'll flip if anyone does it before the 15th. Yeah Denver holds the cards but, we'll see how badly Denver really wants BM by the return they actually settle on.

Hercules Rockefeller
03-24-2010, 12:13 PM
Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.

Gotta love the Internetz.

Just like the nebulous "conditional draft pick" will make any proposed trade fair, incentive-based contracts will always result in a player signing the contract if the team is smart enough to offer one that is structured properly.

OBF1
03-24-2010, 12:21 PM
Look at it irregardless of the player taken with the pick.
Last year when Marshall started acting up in camp a lot of people figured we'd be lucky to get a 2010 2nd rounder for him.

Peter King, not the best football writer in the world but also probably not the worst, said this off-season he figured the Broncos would have to settle for a 2nd rounder in exchange for Marshall.

Anquan Boldin was traded for a 3rd and a 4th this off-season.

So if the Broncos trade Marshall for #14 what they really did was trade Marshall for a 2009 early 2nd round pick, i.e. better than what most would expect us to get for him since his little training camp episode last year.

And they got that compensation a year sooner, while still getting an additional productive year out of Marshall.

From a value standpoint getting something sooner is always better than later, and the value Marshall gave in '09 definitely helps to raise the value of the transaction as well.

If you try to pin it entirely on Alphonso Smith the player and not the pick value then it'll always look bad short of Smith becoming an elite CB, but that is because drafting NFL players is similar to buying a new car. Once you drive 'em off the lot you lose a ton of value. Take Kam Wimbley for example. Guy has had 28.5 sacks in 5 years, more than Suggs in that same time frame if I recall, but he got traded for a 3rd round pick. He's not a bust, he's a good starter and productive pass rusher. Taken in the early 1st, traded for an early 3rd.

I'm personally expecting the Broncos to request #14 and Hawthorne in exchange for Marshall. That or #14 and swapping #60 (the 2nd they got from SD) for a later round pick. I'd be cool with either move myself, even though I'd prefer to keep Marshall if he'd be willing to put his money where is mouth is and take a deal that requires him to act like the reformed person he claims to be.

1) Suggs had 40 sacks in his first 5 seasons including defensive ROY

2) irregardless is not a word... look it up

Gcver2ver3
03-24-2010, 12:21 PM
Spin it anyway you like...getting only a 1 in return for a WR who has had 3 straight 100 catch seasons...is a bad deal (period).

The fact that we are even entertaining it (especially when we have a very average starting QB) is ignorant.

People can say what they want about BM off the field...he produces when he's on it.

The trade for Smith was a huge reach...regardless how he turns out at this point. Trading BM for a 1 is questionable. Getting less than a one is unacceptable.

Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.


i agree with much of your post...especially the part about taking less than a 1st for Marshall being bad...

but i did bold the part i disagree with...i know you referenced it later in your post, but i don't think we can minimize the risk that comes with Marshall...

he has been arrested for domestic violence, injured himself "on a fast food wrapper", admittedly escalated a situation that led to D-Will's murder, been suspended by the league AND his team for poor conduct....he is one incident away from a year long suspension...

that makes it scary to a team to offer their 1st rd pick AND sign him to a big contract...

if we can get a low to mid 1st rounder for Marshall...we should take it...

Drek
03-24-2010, 12:34 PM
Spin it anyway you like...getting only a 1 in return for a WR who has had 3 straight 100 catch seasons...is a bad deal (period).

The fact that we are even entertaining it (especially when we have a very average starting QB) is ignorant.

People can say what they want about BM off the field...he produces when he's on it.

The trade for Smith was a huge reach...regardless how he turns out at this point. Trading BM for a 1 is questionable. Getting less than a one is unacceptable.

Keep him...sign him to a heavily incentifized deal.

Marshall already turned down the second highest per year deal for a WR in NFL history because it didn't have enough up front guaranteed money.

To me that screams red flag. He isn't willing to bet on his behavior, so why should we?

Marshall without all of the off-field issues is worth a 1st and then some, no doubt, but with the off-field issues and Goddell's willingness to crack down on players? Marshall is one misstep away from taking an 8 game break, one serious misstep away from 16 games off. Terrell Owens is the best WR in the league since Jerry Rice. He's changed teams multiple times, not once for any real value, and he's never had off-field issues like Marshall. In today's NFL guys like Marshall have their on-field value significantly reduced by off-field risk.

Marshall produces when on the field and in the right frame of mind, but there isn't much guarantee of that if he's playing on a tender. He won't sign a contract that protects the team, and the team would be stupid to give him the kind of huge guaranteed money he wants to take an extension.

So they're at an impasse. The best thing for both parties is Denver finding a team willing to give something that approaches his value (like #14 and Hawthorne) who will also give Marshall the contract extension with the big signing bonus he's seeking.

Killericon
03-24-2010, 12:58 PM
2) irregardless is not a word... look it up

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Oxford doesn't recognize it, but don't pretend like it isn't a word. It's been used commonly for over 100 years now.

crush17
03-24-2010, 12:59 PM
IRREGARDLESS is NOT a word!!

broncos-rock
03-24-2010, 12:59 PM
I think the Boldin trade screwed up the compensation that we are going to get for Marshall. I would still be all over the bucs 2 2nd round picks if we could swing that. Your gonna get great players without the huge contracts of 1st rounders. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out.......

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 01:52 PM
You're the one whining about gifs.

You are the one claiming I always pick on you.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 01:53 PM
I believe that's what we in the industry call, sarcasm

it's great when you recognize it

Can you pick up my tone in my response to this?

Kaylore
03-24-2010, 01:54 PM
IRREGARDLESS is NOT a word!!

It's a word that is used, so it technically is, but it's stupid and redundant.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-24-2010, 01:58 PM
It's a word that is used, so it technically is, but it's stupid and redundant.

New words pop up all the time...it would be silly to deny the existence of new words. But i agree with kaylore's assessment on this one.

Rabb
03-24-2010, 02:00 PM
Can you pick up my tone in my response to this?

douchebag?

yeah it's pretty clear from all your posts

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-24-2010, 02:01 PM
Ir- and -less have the same negative meaning. It's not a word.

CEH
03-24-2010, 02:04 PM
It's a word that is used, so it technically is, but it's stupid and redundant.

Redundant like "Frozen Tundra"
Tunrda by definition is permanently frozen subsoil

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 02:17 PM
douchebag?

yeah it's pretty clear from all your posts

:thumbs:

Well I'm not the only person that asked what he was talking about so....

gyldenlove
03-24-2010, 02:19 PM
It's a word that is used, so it technically is, but it's stupid and redundant.

It is like nucular - a sound made by idiots in place of a real word.

gyldenlove
03-24-2010, 02:20 PM
Marshall already turned down the second highest per year deal for a WR in NFL history because it didn't have enough up front guaranteed money.

To me that screams red flag. He isn't willing to bet on his behavior, so why should we?

Marshall without all of the off-field issues is worth a 1st and then some, no doubt, but with the off-field issues and Goddell's willingness to crack down on players? Marshall is one misstep away from taking an 8 game break, one serious misstep away from 16 games off. Terrell Owens is the best WR in the league since Jerry Rice. He's changed teams multiple times, not once for any real value, and he's never had off-field issues like Marshall. In today's NFL guys like Marshall have their on-field value significantly reduced by off-field risk.

Marshall produces when on the field and in the right frame of mind, but there isn't much guarantee of that if he's playing on a tender. He won't sign a contract that protects the team, and the team would be stupid to give him the kind of huge guaranteed money he wants to take an extension.

So they're at an impasse. The best thing for both parties is Denver finding a team willing to give something that approaches his value (like #14 and Hawthorne) who will also give Marshall the contract extension with the big signing bonus he's seeking.

What he isn't willing to bet on is our medical staff.

Drek
03-24-2010, 03:11 PM
1) Suggs had 40 sacks in his first 5 seasons including defensive ROY
1. I said over the same time frame. i didn't say respective to their careers. Though I was a bit off, Wimbley has only played 4 season and in that time Suggs does have 0.5 sacks more than him.

2) irregardless is not a word... look it up

2. You mean the nonstandard form of regardless typically used in conversation and popular throughout the U.S. since the early 20th century? I'm pretty sure that discussion groups are in effect conversational writing and a nonstandard used primarily in that medium would as a result fit perfectly well within the message board vernacular.

Actually want to talk about the point of the post while we're at it?

meangene
03-24-2010, 03:33 PM
here's the deal - the Broncos hold all the cards. let Seattle offer a contract and we match or trade, easy really.

Not really since we really don't want him back. That is why we only put a first round tender on him. It would be foolish not to consider something less than #6 overall if we were willing to let him go for any first. Do you really think we have any intention of matching any offer sheet he signs? If he signs an offer sheet, the trade pretty much goes out the window. We either match or accept the compensation. We don't hold all the cards, but that doesn't mean we can't negotiate wisely which is what I think we are doing. What happens next year if we hang on to him? We are not going to sign him to a long-term contract. We may get nothing for him depending on the CBA situation. Don't get me wrong - we need to get reasonable compensation for him and should be adopting the posture we are for now. But, I don't think we should get greedy and insist on #6 or nothing.

baja
03-24-2010, 03:54 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Oxford doesn't recognize it, but don't pretend like it isn't a word. It's been used commonly for over 100 years now.

Reguardless "irregardless" is not a word.

crush17
03-24-2010, 04:00 PM
*facepalm*

misturanderson
03-24-2010, 04:11 PM
What happens next year if we hang on to him? We are not going to sign him to a long-term contract.

We can always tag him if we don't want to give him up for nothing. If we don't get any serious offers for him this year that will only help the Broncos side of contract negotiations and maybe we will be able to keep him around long-term anyway.

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 04:16 PM
http://rlv.zcache.com/irregardless_tshirt-p2359821888890537374mhe_400.jpg

Dagmar
03-24-2010, 04:17 PM
http://www.conversationmarketing.com/irregardless.jpg

meangene
03-24-2010, 04:20 PM
We can always tag him if we don't want to give him up for nothing. If we don't get any serious offers for him this year that will only help the Broncos side of contract negotiations and maybe we will be able to keep him around long-term anyway.

I don't what the situation will be with tags next year. How many? Any? Would we have other priorities since there aren't a lot of long-term deals being done with 2011 in limbo?

misturanderson
03-24-2010, 05:07 PM
I don't what the situation will be with tags next year. How many? Any? Would we have other priorities since there aren't a lot of long-term deals being done with 2011 in limbo?

I would guess that if there is a lockout next year everyone's rights will be retained by the team they were on before the lockout. They probably wouldn't even need to tag anyone. I have no idea if that's right, just a complete guess.

meangene
03-24-2010, 05:19 PM
I would guess that if there is a lockout next year everyone's rights will be retained by the team they were on before the lockout. They probably wouldn't even need to tag anyone. I have no idea if that's right, just a complete guess.

I guess my point is if there is a new CBA, would we be able to tag or franchise him and would we have other priorities? If we can get reasonable compensation for him now, we don't run the risk of the unknown.

Chris
03-24-2010, 05:28 PM
IRREGARDLESS is NOT a word!!

Let me axe you a question? Have you ever heard someone use it? Irregardless of the fact that this is not a word people still use it therefore it has become part of the popular vernacular, irregardless of how much you might use it. Man, these discussions are so unorganized sometimes but they are so fun.

mhgaffney
03-24-2010, 05:36 PM
Crush is correct.

Look in Webster.

I know because I made the same mistake myself -- and was corrected by an elderly woman who is a crossword puzzle master.

Take it as gospel. There ain't no irregardless...

misturanderson
03-24-2010, 10:06 PM
I guess my point is if there is a new CBA, would we be able to tag or franchise him and would we have other priorities? If we can get reasonable compensation for him now, we don't run the risk of the unknown.

That's the issue though. Nobody is offering reasonable compensation as of yet. We don't have to get rid of him.

Everyone assumed he was gone last preseason and he's still here. McDaniels isn't going to give him up just because everyone thinks we should. For all we know he set the compensation at a 1 to let some other team negotiate his deal so we could match it and Marshall couldn't bitch about the terms.

Chris
03-24-2010, 10:26 PM
Crush is correct.

Look in Webster.

I know because I made the same mistake myself -- and was corrected by an elderly woman who is a crossword puzzle master.

Take it as gospel. There ain't no irregardless...

I'm actually a massive elderly woman... I mean grammatical stickler.

ZONA
03-25-2010, 12:02 AM
I say 14 and a 5th and they can take the turd.



That "turd" was simply our best player last year, no questions asked. You don't have to want to go out and have a beer with the guy but you have to recognize the skills man.

Keep BM !!!

Blueflame
03-25-2010, 12:07 AM
Cutting through the "smoke and mirrors".... the Seahawks really, really want Marshall. They're just posturing in an effort to get a reduced price.

meangene
03-25-2010, 04:26 AM
That's the issue though. Nobody is offering reasonable compensation as of yet. We don't have to get rid of him.

Everyone assumed he was gone last preseason and he's still here. McDaniels isn't going to give him up just because everyone thinks we should. For all we know he set the compensation at a 1 to let some other team negotiate his deal so we could match it and Marshall couldn't b**** about the terms.

I think someone will offer "reasonable compensation" as long as we don't insist that has to be a top 10 pick. No, we don't have to get rid of him but I really believe it is in everybody's best interest that he move on. I don't think we have any intention of matching a contract offer for him. The idea was not to set the market for his contract but to move him. If we wanted to sign him to a long-term deal we would have. We simply do not want to risk the type of guaranteed money he wants on a player with his off-field history. We are hoping somebody else will.

misturanderson
03-25-2010, 07:57 AM
I think someone will offer "reasonable compensation" as long as we don't insist that has to be a top 10 pick. No, we don't have to get rid of him but I really believe it is in everybody's best interest that he move on. I don't think we have any intention of matching a contract offer for him. The idea was not to set the market for his contract but to move him. If we wanted to sign him to a long-term deal we would have. We simply do not want to risk the type of guaranteed money he wants on a player with his off-field history. We are hoping somebody else will.

We'll find out sometime before the season starts. Who knows when at this point though?

meangene
03-25-2010, 08:24 AM
We'll find out sometime before the season starts. Who knows when at this point though?

I would be surprised if it is not before the draft. The worst thing would be for this to drag on - Marshall won't sign his tender, holds out til week 10 then comes in to get his year of service in, etc., etc. Another year of drama and distraction.

baja
03-25-2010, 08:37 AM
I would be surprised if it is not before the draft. The worst thing would be for this to drag on - Marshall won't sign his tender, holds out til week 10 then comes in to get his year of service in, etc., etc. Another year of drama and distraction.


That will never happen,

Marshall likes to spend money and he is running low....

meangene
03-25-2010, 08:41 AM
That will never happen,

Marshall likes to spend money and he is running low....

:rofl: Probably true!

PRBronco
03-25-2010, 08:41 AM
That "turd" was simply our best player last year, no questions asked. You don't have to want to go out and have a beer with the guy but you have to recognize the skills man.

Keep BM !!!

The painful thing about BM (lol painful BM) is that he's got a hilarious personality, he seems like he'd be great to go have a beer with, I just don't want him on my favourite football team ****ing things up. That being said, I just have to think about the end of the Cowboys game, and I'm glad they're not rushing into a deal to get rid of him, he's a very valuable asset.



And seriously guys, irregardless is not a word. Just because it's (unfortunately) commonly used doesn't make it right.

baja
03-25-2010, 09:00 AM
The painful thing about BM (lol painful BM) is that he's got a hilarious personality, he seems like he'd be great to go have a beer with, I just don't want him on my favourite football team ****ing things up. That being said, I just have to think about the end of the Cowboys game, and I'm glad they're not rushing into a deal to get rid of him, he's a very valuable asset.



And seriously guys, irregardless is not a word. Just because it's (unfortunately) commonly used doesn't make it right.

If regardless means without regard what does irregardless mean...

Dedhed
03-26-2010, 03:37 PM
I think the Broncos are right in their approach. By refusing to negotiate they are effectively communicating that they are 100% satisfied with bringing him back. Essentially telling everyone their will be no discount to get him, it's got to be top 5 WR compensation.

While I agree with this, I think the Seahawks offer a unique situation due to the fact that they have two first round selections. I would love to get the #14 overall pick for Marshall, and I think the Broncos would as well.

Of course they're going to work to get the #6 pick, but I think they will negotiate within the first round. And the should.