PDA

View Full Version : Man We Should Trade for Will Smith(OHIO STATE) of the Saints!!



Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 06:48 PM
IT pisses me off he gets 1/3rd of the time of most DE's Yet he still Dominates hes like a young @$$ Michael Strahan. Hey simply said hes a top 5 palyer on that team in his 2nd year and deserves a better Situation! The Broncos should trade a 1st and Courtney Brown & Walls for him ? Any thoughts??


+ GO RAY CROCKETT!! GL!! :cheers: :beer: :rockon:

DrunkPanda
10-19-2005, 06:53 PM
um.... no? there has to be a reason that he's getting 1/3 of the time as other DEs. and trading brown would make warren pissed off. and i'd rather keep my first round pick please

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 06:59 PM
um.... no? there has to be a reason that he's getting 1/3 of the time as other DEs. and trading brown would make warren pissed off. and i'd rather keep my first round pick please


HEs getting 1/3rd b/c hes playing behind Darren my friend dont comment on what you dont know about hes a beast!!!

WABronco
10-19-2005, 07:11 PM
We already got two beasts in T Pryce and C Brown...

Get real, unless you're being sarcastic beyond anyone else's understanding, damn...

ReleaseTheBeast7
10-19-2005, 07:13 PM
What the hell?

Dumb statement of the year?

dannyrbrown
10-19-2005, 07:16 PM
What the hell?

Dumb statement of the year?

Nevermind the fact that the trade deadline passed yesterday!

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 07:18 PM
Nevermind the fact that the trade deadline passed yesterday!


Im talkin offseason!!! Besides C/B is not a ******* Beast like Wille!

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 07:21 PM
We already got two beasts in T Pryce and C Brown...

Get real, unless you're being sarcastic beyond anyone else's understanding, damn...


but cmon man he went to THE OHIO STATE!! i mean come on!! :rolleyes:

TXBRONC
10-19-2005, 07:26 PM
IT pisses me off he gets 1/3rd of the time of most DE's Yet he still Dominates hes like a young @$$ Michael Strahan. Hey simply said hes a top 5 palyer on that team in his 2nd year and deserves a better Situation! The Broncos should trade a 1st and Courtney Brown & Walls for him ? Any thoughts??


+ GO RAY CROCKETT!! GL!! :cheers: :beer: :rockon:


No way. Next season's draft class in strong there is no need to that, besides the fact there are salary cap considerations. If deserves a better situation fine but not in Denver. Also Smith going to OSU means absolutely nothing to me.

ReleaseTheBeast7
10-19-2005, 07:37 PM
Im talkin offseason!!! Besides C/B is not a ******* Beast like Wille!

I'm a bigger beast than Willie and the only thing I'm beasty at is eating.

*Takes bite of Klondike bar*

OrangeShadow
10-19-2005, 07:39 PM
to replenish our depleted D line ! :duh: of course!

BlueDevilsDB
10-19-2005, 07:41 PM
I think we should trade both our 1st round picks, Jake Plummer, and Champ Bailey for Phillip Rivers. He's getting a 1/10 the playing time he deserves. He'd beast it up in Denver.


:coffee:

ReleaseTheBeast7
10-19-2005, 07:43 PM
I think we should trade both our 1st round picks, Jake Plummer, and Champ Bailey for Phillip Rivers. He's getting a 1/10 the playing time he deserves. He'd beast it up in Denver.


:coffee:

You sure you don't want to add Al Wilson in that package? After all, it would be very hard to get him with just Jake, Champ, and the 2 1st rounders.

BlueDevilsDB
10-19-2005, 07:52 PM
You sure you don't want to add Al Wilson in that package? After all, it would be very hard to get him with just Jake, Champ, and the 2 1st rounders.
You're right, and add Rod as insurance. He's worthless.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-19-2005, 07:53 PM
I'd trade a 1st, Lenny Walls, and Courtney Brown for Will Smith.

Anybody that actually follows Will Smith and/or the Saints would know why. Besides being one of the best pass rushing DEs in the NFL as well as stout against the run, he may be the best in the league at stripping the QB.

The sad part is we passed on Will Smith so we could draft DJ Williams. Will Smith was taken with the next pick. Too bad we can't go back in time and fix that blunder.


Will Smith is on pace for 60 tackles, 9 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and 6 passes defended.

Last season Will Smith had 42 tackles, 8 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, and 2 passes defended.

Our current DEs are on pace for:
Trevor Pryce = 24 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended
Courtney Brown = 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
Ebenezor Ekuban = 24 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
John Engleberger = 21 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended.

If you add all 4 of our DEs together, they still can't touch Will Smith.

Oh yeah, and DJ Williams, he's on pace for 40 tackles this year.....that's only down 70 tackles from last season.

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 07:56 PM
I'd trade a 1st, Lenny Walls, and Courtney Brown for Will Smith.

Anybody that actually follows Will Smith and/or the Saints would know why. Besides being one of the best pass rushing DEs in the NFL as well as stout against the run, he may be the best in the league at stripping the QB.

The sad part is we passed on Will Smith so we could draft DJ Williams. Will Smith was taken with the next pick. Too bad we can't go back in time and fix that blunder.


Will Smith is on pace for 60 tackles, 9 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and 6 passes defended.

Last season Will Smith had 42 tackles, 8 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, and 2 passes defended.

Our current DEs are on pace for:
Trevor Pryce = 24 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended
Courtney Brown = 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
Ebenezor Ekuban = 24 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
John Engleberger = 21 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended.

If you add all 4 of our DEs together, they still can't touch Will Smith.

Oh yeah, and DJ Williams, he's on pace for 40 tackles this year.....that's only down 70 tackles from last season.

This is man a unbiased humanbeing!! THis makes me so happy these dumbasses are so blind that they dont realize it!! Will smith=Trevor Pryce>rest of Bronco Dline!

Coutrtney Brown sucks compared to Will smith DONT DIOUBT IT!! Make sure you vote YES!!

rcsodak
10-19-2005, 07:56 PM
I'd trade a 1st, Lenny Walls, and Courtney Brown for Will Smith.

Anybody that actually follows Will Smith and/or the Saints would know why. Besides being one of the best pass rushing DEs in the NFL as well as stout against the run, he may be the best in the league at stripping the QB.

The sad part is we passed on Will Smith so we could draft DJ Williams. Will Smith was taken with the next pick. Too bad we can't go back in time and fix that blunder.


Will Smith is on pace for 60 tackles, 9 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and 6 passes defended.

Last season Will Smith had 42 tackles, 8 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, and 2 passes defended.

Our current DEs are on pace for:
Trevor Pryce = 24 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended
Courtney Brown = 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
Ebenezor Ekuban = 24 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
John Engleberger = 21 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended.

If you add all 4 of our DEs together, they still can't touch Will Smith.

Oh yeah, and DJ Williams, he's on pace for 40 tackles this year.....that's only down 70 tackles from last season.
Really, mug....WE GET IT!!!!!!

One minute you're happy that Shanny got a replacement for Gold (needed).
The next, you're not.

Why is it I've never heard of him?
Was he in the top 3 last year for ROY?
And why isn't he playing more?
DJ was starting after 3 games his first year.
Did he get any sacks against Brady? (common opponent)

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-19-2005, 08:04 PM
B/c Your a suck ass football fan!! He was taken in the 1st round of 2004s draft tha one were we drafted the dookie players except(D.J Williams!) He Is behind a superstar player like Darren Howward Dumbass... Dont Comment unless your a little knowledegable!! HE owns Mike Vick Constantly!! Hell that would have helped last year


WILL SMITH=Michael Strahan!!

For the record, I am not associated with this guy. I do like Will Smith more then any of our current linemen though. And much more then DJ Williams, and I liked him more then DJ Williams on the 2004 draft day as well.

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 08:07 PM
For the record, I am not associated with this guy. I do like Will Smith more then any of our current linemen though. And much more then DJ Williams, and I liked him more then DJ Williams on the 2004 draft day as well.


But oppinons make us common users. These guys dont even know him they prolly think!!

Julius Peppers>Michael strahan

or

John Abraham>Simeon Rice

Lmao get a clue!

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-19-2005, 08:12 PM
Really, mug....WE GET IT!!!!!!

One minute you're happy that Shanny got a replacement for Gold (needed).
The next, you're not.

Why is it I've never heard of him?

No idea man. He was the top DE in the 2004 draft. He had a monster rookie season, see the states I posted above. He led the NFL in forced fumbles last season.


Was he in the top 3 last year for ROY?

Nope. D-linemen never are. It's always CBs (Robinson and Gamble) and LBs (Vilma and Williams). It will happen again this season with Mike Patterson being overlooked.


And why isn't he playing more?
DJ was starting after 3 games his first year.
He starts opposite of Charles Grant. Darren Howard usually plays DT, but they rotate him into DE at times as well. Cant really play more then every down barring breathers.


Did he get any sacks against Brady? (common opponent)

Hasn't played him yet this season, but the one guy is right, Smith does own Vick.

Skywalker
10-19-2005, 08:17 PM
But oppinons make us common users. These guys dont even know him they prolly think!!

Julius Peppers>Michael strahan

or

John Abraham>Simeon Rice

Lmao get a clue!


Actually I would take Julius Peppers over Micheal Strahan but not John Abraham over Simeon Rice.


I am not familiar with Will Smith so I will not say yes or no. I have never seen him play and I will not go by stats alone. stats are misleading (Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila anyone?)






Also calling people stupid (except cussing....and cussing bugs me when someone does it constantly) when you can't even spell makes me laugh :coffee:

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 08:18 PM
I'd trade a 1st, Lenny Walls, and Courtney Brown for Will Smith.

Anybody that actually follows Will Smith and/or the Saints would know why. Besides being one of the best pass rushing DEs in the NFL as well as stout against the run, he may be the best in the league at stripping the QB.

The sad part is we passed on Will Smith so we could draft DJ Williams. Will Smith was taken with the next pick. Too bad we can't go back in time and fix that blunder.


Will Smith is on pace for 60 tackles, 9 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and 6 passes defended.

Last season Will Smith had 42 tackles, 8 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, and 2 passes defended.

If you add all 4 of our DEs together, they still can't touch Will Smith.

Oh yeah, and DJ Williams, he's on pace for 40 tackles this year.....that's only down 70 tackles from last season.

come on MUG, you're too smart for posts like this. how was drafting the man that led the team in tackles his rookie year a blunder? imagine what our linebacking corp would have looked like last year. wilson between sykes and spragan? with priest, gonzo, LT and gates in our division? with a defensive scheme that centers on the linebackers?

sure dj's stats are down this year, but in the offseason you said that we could expect as much due to his move to sam. so his stats being down means squat. i know, i know, what a waste of a 1st round pick for a sam, but again, last year he wasnt a sam and led the team in tackles. this year we brought in an improvement (you have said somewhere that so far gold is our mvp so yes it is an improvement, especially over spragan (sp?) on the sam side). you cannot not draft a player one year when there was as big a hole as we had at outside backer because next year someone better might become available. and in a system that keys on the backers, such as coyer's, having the best three backers you can afford is vital. also dont underestimate the importance of having a sam the calibre of dj with the TE's in our division, stats or no stats.

also i dont get why you keep comparing the bronco d line's stats to other teams d line's stats. over and over again you have posted how coyer's system requires lineman to tie up blockers and allow the linebackers to make plays. so why would there stats be comparable to a team like say jax, who relies on their d line to be the playmakers? when i tell you an apple tastes good it doesnt make sense to tell me how much you hate peeling oranges, if you get what im saying.

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 08:19 PM
Actually I would take Julius Peppers over Micheal Strahan but not John Abraham over Simeon Rice.


I am not familiar with Will Smith so I will not say yes or no. I have never seen him play and I will not go by stats alone. stats are misleading (Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila anyone?)






Also calling people stupid (except cussing....and cussing bugs me when someone does it constantly) when you can't even spell makes me laugh :coffee:

Sorry for cursing But this ?Man is a beast!! He owns everyone on our Dline except maybe DT-pryce> KGB dosent suck!!

Superchop7
10-19-2005, 08:21 PM
I have a mock somewhere for 04, Smith was my guy but I would have been happy with Udeze or Wilfork at the time, it would be interesting to check out how the rest of my guys fared, if I find it, I'll post it.
I did not know he was doing this well, good to hear.

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 08:22 PM
Actually I would take Julius Peppers over Micheal Strahan but not John Abraham over Simeon Rice.





i would take ekuban over abraham. ya abraham has more talent but i dont want someone that doesnt want to be on the field during a playoff game.

:coffee:

Champ>NFL
10-19-2005, 08:24 PM
i would take ekuban over abraham. ya abraham has more talent but i dont want someone that doesnt want to be on the field during a playoff game.

:coffee:


Oh get that old work hard B.s out of here!! Ekuban dosent produce on the field as good as Abraham does off it!!

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 08:29 PM
Oh get that old work hard B.s out of here!! Ekuban dosent produce on the field as good as Abraham does off it!!


are you kidding me? do you remember waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back to last years playoffs when abraham was going into the off season as a free agent so he wouldnt play against pittsburg because he didnt 'want to risk his future'? even though he had medical clearance to play? if memory serves me correctly the jets lost by 3 points. abraham could have been the difference in that game. i dont care how much talent he has, if i was a gm and his agent called, i would hang up the phone.

OhNoKoolAid
10-19-2005, 08:31 PM
Owning Michael Vick isn't what it's cracked up to be. Considering that Atlanta was tied for fifth in most sacks allowed, only two away from second place, with fifty sacks, ownage is a title several defensive players can claim on the Atlanta QB. Vick alone was the third most sacked QB, only three shy of Davi Carr's number, but claiming someone "owns" David Carr would sound downright foolish considering the well publicized problems on the Texans' front five. Also, Atlanta fumbled the ball 26 times, 16 of which were Vick's, and the team lost fourteen of those, half of them being Vick's. Considering the team was seventh in most fumbles lost, and Vick attributing for half of that number, he was rather "owned" in that category.

There are several pros and cons when debating Will Smith, "owning" Michael Vick should not be one of them, because several can make the claim along the lines of sacks and forcing turnovers.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-19-2005, 08:32 PM
come on MUG, you're too smart for posts like this. how was drafting the man that led the team in tackles his rookie year a blunder? imagine what our linebacking corp would have looked like last year. wilson between sykes and spragan? with priest, gonzo, LT and gates in our division? with a defensive scheme that centers on the linebackers?

sure dj's stats are down this year, but in the offseason you said that we could expect as much due to his move to sam. so his stats being down means squat. i know, i know, what a waste of a 1st round pick for a sam, but again, last year he wasnt a sam and led the team in tackles. this year we brought in an improvement (you have said somewhere that so far gold is our mvp so yes it is an improvement, especially over spragan (sp?) on the sam side). you cannot not draft a player one year when there was as big a hole as we had at outside backer because next year someone better might become available. and in a system that keys on the backers, such as coyer's, having the best three backers you can afford is vital. also dont underestimate the importance of having a sam the calibre of dj with the TE's in our division, stats or no stats.

also i dont get why you keep comparing the bronco d line's stats to other teams d line's stats. over and over again you have posted how coyer's system requires lineman to tie up blockers and allow the linebackers to make plays. so why would there stats be comparable to a team like say jax, who relies on their d line to be the playmakers? when i tell you an apple tastes good it doesnt make sense to tell me how much you hate peeling oranges, if you get what im saying.

The blunder was not resigning Ian Gold before the draft like we verbally agreed to do, only to renege on Gold when we drafted DJ Williams.

We could have signed Ian Gold then, like everyone wanted, for the same price he signed for this season (smaller signing bonus though), and then drafted Wilfork, Udeze, or Smith to help our line.

That was my recommendation at the time. Im not always right, but I'll be damned if I wasn't right that particular instance. Especially now in retrospect.


As for your arguement we needed Williams last year....I'm not sure we did. Recall that Jashon Sykes and Donnie Spragan started the majority of the year prior due to injuries and that we finished with a top 5 defense with them both starting over 10 games. Last year with DJ Williams replacing Sykes, we again finished with a top 5 defense.

I don't see the need, and I dont see the improvement that Williams brought. Williams is a good player, but we had ample talent on the team, there was just no reason to draft him other then we panicked when Mike Clayton was drafted in front of us.

Skywalker
10-19-2005, 08:34 PM
i would take ekuban over abraham. ya abraham has more talent but i dont want someone that doesnt want to be on the field during a playoff game.

:coffee:


read what I posted.



I didnt say I would take Abraham over Rice. and whoever would take Abraham over Rice is a moron.

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 08:36 PM
read what I posted.



I didnt say I would take Abraham over Rice. and whoever would take Abraham over Rice is a moron.


maybe you need to read what i posted.

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 08:45 PM
[QUOTE]The blunder was not resigning Ian Gold before the draft like we verbally agreed to do, only to renege on Gold when we drafted DJ Williams.

We could have signed Ian Gold then, like everyone wanted, for the same price he signed for this season (smaller signing bonus though), and then drafted Wilfork, Udeze, or Smith to help our line.

That was my recommendation at the time. Im not always right, but I'll be damned if I wasn't right that particular instance. Especially now in retrospect.

this is a valid argument, but 25mil is alot to spend on an undersized backer coming off of a blown knee. you just cant predict how much it was going to affect his game, which apparently was not at all.


As for your arguement we needed Williams last year....I'm not sure we did. Recall that Jashon Sykes and Donnie Spragan started the majority of the year prior due to injuries and that we finished with a top 5 defense with them both starting over 10 games. Last year with DJ Williams replacing Sykes, we again finished with a top 5 defense.

I don't see the need, and I dont see the improvement that Williams brought. Williams is a good player, but we had ample talent on the team, there was just no reason to draft him other then we panicked when Mike Clayton was drafted in front of us.

to be honest i dont recall how many games we had to play them both. i though it was only the last 3 or 4 but if you say it was the last 10, i'll take your word for it. even still we lost our two starting outside and it needed to be addressed. linebackes are just too important to coyer's system to have backups being your starters going into the season. plus last year we didnt know pryce was going to miss the whole season and we still had heyward, so definately dj filled a larger void than will smith would have, at that point.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-19-2005, 09:01 PM
this is a valid argument, but 25mil is alot to spend on an undersized backer coming off of a blown knee. you just cant predict how much it was going to affect his game, which apparently was not at all.



to be honest i dont recall how many games we had to play them both. i though it was only the last 3 or 4 but if you say it was the last 10, i'll take your word for it. even still we lost our two starting outside and it needed to be addressed. linebackes are just too important to coyer's system to have backups being your starters going into the season. plus last year we didnt know pryce was going to miss the whole season and we still had heyward, so definately dj filled a larger void than will smith would have, at that point.

I think where we may differ is that I think its important in the salary cap era to plan 3 seasons ahead to highest extent possible. You seem to be more "win now", this year is the main concern type of thinking.

Both are valid, and its certainly hard to plan long term in football, but I think you have to look at the college ranks and the talent that is coming out in a year or two and then look at your current team and when contracts are likely/combined with market value at the various positions and really just plan your team formula years ahead of time and just have backup plans for the inevitable injury or bust.


In a nutshell, I would have taken a D-lineman knowing Pryce was not playing up to his contract, the rest of the line was largely ineffective, and Heyward would likely be too expensive to keep a year from then.

But I do agree, that at the day of the draft, OLB was a greater need. I just think that type of tunnel vision is ineffective.

Skywalker
10-19-2005, 09:05 PM
maybe you need to read what i posted.


I did. and to me it sounded like you misread my post and thought I said Abraham is better than Rice.




whatever lets not start an argument...we both agree on the same thing. Rice is better than Abraham and in my eyes Abraham is overrated.

Skywalker
10-19-2005, 09:07 PM
Sorry for cursing But this ?Man is a beast!! He owns everyone on our Dline except maybe DT-pryce> KGB dosent suck!!


I didnt say he sucked did I. but he is very overrated. his stats are misleading.



he had 8 sacks last year but he only gets sacks against sucky-OL's. last year I believe he only ended up with 8 because he got 4 sacks on the last game of the season against what else.....a bad OL. I can not remember what team though.




therefore. stats are misleading.

bcbronc
10-19-2005, 09:10 PM
I think where we may differ is that I think its important in the salary cap era to plan 3 seasons ahead to highest extent possible. You seem to be more "win now", this year is the main concern type of thinking.

Both are valid, and its certainly hard to plan long term in football, but I think you have to look at the college ranks and the talent that is coming out in a year or two and then look at your current team and when contracts are likely/combined with market value at the various positions and really just plan your team formula years ahead of time and just have backup plans for the inevitable injury or bust.


In a nutshell, I would have taken a D-lineman knowing Pryce was not playing up to his contract, the rest of the line was largely ineffective, and Heyward would likely be too expensive to keep a year from then.

But I do agree, that at the day of the draft, OLB was a greater need. I just think that type of tunnel vision is ineffective.


i hear what your saying but thats not quite what i meant. i more meant that you cant assume that gold (or whomever) will become a free agent just because he is in his last year of his contract. or if he does you cant just assume that you'll be able to sign him. some gm could have thrown 35 mill at him, so you cant try to predict the future. so when you have a gaping hole (as outside backer was, imo) and there is someone available at your draft spot, you have to take him.

i do agree with your opinion on drafting defensive lineman in general though. shanny obviously neglects it during the draft. but last year i think dj was the right choice over smith, although i would like to see smith in the orange and blue (but not for a 1st, courtney brown and big swat).

*Atwater*
10-19-2005, 10:08 PM
no I say we keep C.Brown and L.Walls there good players. :mad:

WildHorse
10-20-2005, 06:03 AM
Oh get that old work hard B.s out of here!! Ekuban dosent produce on the field as good as Abraham does off it!!

You do realize that if you don't quit talking smack to other broncos fans in the general discussion forum (not to mention obscenities and being obnoxious) that you will get banned.

It's wonderful that you have a passionate point of view, but there's no reason to act like a jerk just because other folks disagree with you.

TXBRONC
10-20-2005, 06:53 AM
no I say we keep C.Brown and L.Walls there good players. :mad:


I'm going change what I said earlier in this thread just a little bit. If Will Smith only costed us Brown and Walls that would be ok, but I wouldn't give up either of our first round picks to get him. There still would be cap consideration to contend with as well.

WildHorse
10-20-2005, 08:51 AM
I'd trade a 1st, Lenny Walls, and Courtney Brown for Will Smith.

Anybody that actually follows Will Smith and/or the Saints would know why. Besides being one of the best pass rushing DEs in the NFL as well as stout against the run, he may be the best in the league at stripping the QB.

The sad part is we passed on Will Smith so we could draft DJ Williams. Will Smith was taken with the next pick. Too bad we can't go back in time and fix that blunder.


Will Smith is on pace for 60 tackles, 9 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and 6 passes defended.

Last season Will Smith had 42 tackles, 8 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, and 2 passes defended.

Our current DEs are on pace for:
Trevor Pryce = 24 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended
Courtney Brown = 21 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
Ebenezor Ekuban = 24 tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 3 passes defended
John Engleberger = 21 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 passes defended.

If you add all 4 of our DEs together, they still can't touch Will Smith.

Oh yeah, and DJ Williams, he's on pace for 40 tackles this year.....that's only down 70 tackles from last season.

I'm not sure I'm impressed with all the stats you quote for Smith. I don't follow him so I'm not trying to say he's not great at his job and I'm not saying he wouldn't be a great fit for this broncos defense. I'm always impressed by sacks, so I'm not trying to downplay that. I question the value of the tackles and forced fumbles stats. While I love the forced fumbles, I'm not convinced that they don't just come when they come. On the tackles, it seems to me that excellent defenses "usually" end up with fewer tackles overall than poorer defenses and that those tackles tend to be more evenly distributed throughout the team--rather than concentrated on one or two players. Not universally true, but generally true. There's a recent FOX sports article on this very issue--if you haven't seen it, let me know and I'll post it later in this thread.

If so, then Denver's D may be playing better now than last year and that may be inferred by a general reduction in the number of tackles that the LBs end up making over the year. I also think there's a lot of merit in the point that's been made about Coyer's approach versus other D coords. approaches. This scheme seems to be working. Also, it may be more important how well an individual fits and plays within the scheme rather than individual excellence (Patriots). With all that said, if we could get Smith for a reasonable cost, I'd be all for it--particularly given the challenges of resigning C.Brown and the question of whether to resign Walls. I suspect the Saints wouldn't be interested unless Courtney has a very good year.

Re your following comments:

"I think where we may differ is that I think its important in the salary cap era to plan 3 seasons ahead to highest extent possible. You seem to be more "win now", this year is the main concern type of thinking.

Both are valid, and its certainly hard to plan long term in football, but I think you have to look at the college ranks and the talent that is coming out in a year or two and then look at your current team and when contracts are likely/combined with market value at the various positions and really just plan your team formula years ahead of time and just have backup plans for the inevitable injury or bust."

I see what you are saying, but it's clear that Shanahan is a "Super Bowl or Bust every single year (with trying to manage the long term second)" kind of guy where you seem to be a "manage for the long term and plan for regular intervals of high success" kind of guy. Within the constraints forced by Shanahan's #1 overall priority, he actually hasn't done that badly in overall team success and in the draft. Not that he couldn't do better in the draft! But measured by his annual #1 priority, and orienting his draft and free agent selections toward that end he's had more success than most coaches/GMs in the league, while NOT having the protracted long down cycle (crash) of most other teams with the same philosophy. As near as I've been able to determine, no coach has won more regular season games during his tenure with the broncos and no team has won more regular season games during his tenure (I looked back thru '96 season and then got tired looking further). Maybe it's possible to have better success doing both, but I'm not sure I've ever really seen it??

Thots?

Champ>NFL
10-20-2005, 04:44 PM
I'm not sure I'm impressed with all the stats you quote for Smith. I don't follow him so I'm not trying to say he's not great at his job and I'm not saying he wouldn't be a great fit for this broncos defense. I'm always impressed by sacks, so I'm not trying to downplay that. I question the value of the tackles and forced fumbles stats. While I love the forced fumbles, I'm not convinced that they don't just come when they come. On the tackles, it seems to me that excellent defenses "usually" end up with fewer tackles overall than poorer defenses and that those tackles tend to be more evenly distributed throughout the team--rather than concentrated on one or two players. Not universally true, but generally true. There's a recent FOX sports article on this very issue--if you haven't seen it, let me know and I'll post it later in this thread.

If so, then Denver's D may be playing better now than last year and that may be inferred by a general reduction in the number of tackles that the LBs end up making over the year. I also think there's a lot of merit in the point that's been made about Coyer's approach versus other D coords. approaches. This scheme seems to be working. Also, it may be more important how well an individual fits and plays within the scheme rather than individual excellence (Patriots). With all that said, if we could get Smith for a reasonable cost, I'd be all for it--particularly given the challenges of resigning C.Brown and the question of whether to resign Walls. I suspect the Saints wouldn't be interested unless Courtney has a very good year.

Re your following comments:

"I think where we may differ is that I think its important in the salary cap era to plan 3 seasons ahead to highest extent possible. You seem to be more "win now", this year is the main concern type of thinking.

Both are valid, and its certainly hard to plan long term in football, but I think you have to look at the college ranks and the talent that is coming out in a year or two and then look at your current team and when contracts are likely/combined with market value at the various positions and really just plan your team formula years ahead of time and just have backup plans for the inevitable injury or bust."

I see what you are saying, but it's clear that Shanahan is a "Super Bowl or Bust every single year (with trying to manage the long term second)" kind of guy where you seem to be a "manage for the long term and plan for regular intervals of high success" kind of guy. Within the constraints forced by Shanahan's #1 overall priority, he actually hasn't done that badly in overall team success and in the draft. Not that he couldn't do better in the draft! But measured by his annual #1 priority, and orienting his draft and free agent selections toward that end he's had more success than most coaches/GMs in the league, while NOT having the protracted long down cycle (crash) of most other teams with the same philosophy. As near as I've been able to determine, no coach has won more regular season games during his tenure with the broncos and no team has won more regular season games during his tenure (I looked back thru '96 season and then got tired looking further). Maybe it's possible to have better success doing both, but I'm not sure I've ever really seen it??

Thots?

:beer: good oppinon i like that every 1 else was just running in saying dumb ish like HE DOSENT GET PT!! Those people need to STH!! But trust me 1st rounder is definatley worth him!! You might be right all 3toghter is 2 much!! I exaggrated cause Lenny Sucks so bad!!

rogue719
10-20-2005, 07:02 PM
The trade deadline is past. This is just posting self abuse. ;-)

Colorado69
10-20-2005, 08:33 PM
As I live near New Orleans and have access to alot of their games on the tube, I too think that Smith is an up and coming star. His problem is that he works for Benson. The Saint's owner is the source for all the major problems and is most likely the worst owner in the league. Smith is not worth all the mentioned players and draft picks. I realize that there was some stretching of the truth, but I can't see Smith being any cheaper than Brown next year. MUG needs to listen to all the information about what went down just before the draft with the knowlegde that the Broncos were trying to deal with two sleezeballs with their heads up their you-know-whats. If the Broncos had shafted Gold in the manner that MUG keeps insisting, he would have never discussed coming back after just one year. When MUG understands one tenth of what he puts out he can be taken as a reliable source. MUG = MMQB.

Superchop7
10-20-2005, 09:18 PM
As I live near New Orleans and have access to alot of their games on the tube, I too think that Smith is an up and coming star. His problem is that he works for Benson. The Saint's owner is the source for all the major problems and is most likely the worst owner in the league. Smith is not worth all the mentioned players and draft picks. I realize that there was some stretching of the truth, but I can't see Smith being any cheaper than Brown next year. MUG needs to listen to all the information about what went down just before the draft with the knowlegde that the Broncos were trying to deal with two sleezeballs with their heads up their you-know-whats. If the Broncos had shafted Gold in the manner that MUG keeps insisting, he would have never discussed coming back after just one year. When MUG understands one tenth of what he puts out he can be taken as a reliable source. MUG = MMQB.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

Are you Lenny Walls brother ?

rcsodak
10-20-2005, 10:15 PM
:beer: good oppinon i like that every 1 else was just running in saying dumb ish like HE DOSENT GET PT!! Those people need to STH!! But trust me 1st rounder is definatley worth him!! You might be right all 3toghter is 2 much!! I exaggrated cause Lenny Sucks so bad!!

Well, it WAS you that mentioned his lack of PT.

I guess if you don't want to be civil in the discussions, then maybe you should be more careful about what you post.

If you think every bronco fan knows about every other player in the NFL, then you need to check reality.

You'll find that, but a handful of posters, most only know about THEIR team, and the next week's opponent.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-20-2005, 10:21 PM
As I live near New Orleans and have access to alot of their games on the tube, I too think that Smith is an up and coming star. His problem is that he works for Benson. The Saint's owner is the source for all the major problems and is most likely the worst owner in the league. Smith is not worth all the mentioned players and draft picks. I realize that there was some stretching of the truth, but I can't see Smith being any cheaper than Brown next year. MUG needs to listen to all the information about what went down just before the draft with the knowlegde that the Broncos were trying to deal with two sleezeballs with their heads up their you-know-whats. If the Broncos had shafted Gold in the manner that MUG keeps insisting, he would have never discussed coming back after just one year. When MUG understands one tenth of what he puts out he can be taken as a reliable source. MUG = MMQB.


You are aware that Ian Gold himself, first immediately after the 2004 NFL draft on Fox's Best Damn Sports Show, and then upon resigning a year later in Denver, expressly stated what occured in terms of his contract.

Over the last two years, I've provided so many links, its ridiculous.

Javalon and I have battled on this for those two years and through all the evidence I've given, he still remains stubborn and unconvinced. You'd think that because Ian Gold says what happened that would be enough, but no, Jav rebuts that Ian Gold is probably lying. I'm still befuddled by that one.

Anyhow, here's what occured with Ian Gold....one more time....(at least according to Ian Gold)

1) The Broncos were prepared to franchise Ian Gold in order to keep him as he, not Al Wilson, was the LB the team had targeted to resign.

2) Ian Gold tears his ACL

3) Mike Shanahan promises Ian Gold to his face that Ian's knee injury will not affect the contract negotiations.

4) Al Wilson plays tremendous and leads a top 5 defense with backups Sykes and Spragan filling in for the injured Gold and Mobley.

5) Al Wilson receives a 43 million contract extension. The money previously targeted to Ian Gold.

6) Ian Gold is told that he will have to take a reduced contract due to his knee injury and not the 30 million, 12-15 signing bonus, he is requesting. Ian Gold gets pissed off that Shanahan lied to his face.

7) The two sides end talks for several months before resuming talks shortly before the 2004 draft.

8) Talks continue into the draft, Ian Gold believes the Broncos and he have reached a verbal agreement on a contract.

9) Denver suddenly drafts DJ Williams (apparently due to panicking after Micheal Clayton was drafted the pick prior) and Ian Gold is shocked.

10) The team informs Ian Gold they are no longer interested.

11) Ian Gold is now doubly pissed, one that Shanahan and the Broncos tried to make him take a below market deal due to his injury after promising him they would not, and two, that after all that, the sides came to a verbal agreement and the Broncos reneged by drafting DJ Williams.

12) Ian Gold lashes out at the Broncos on FoxSports.

13) Ian Gold signs with Tampa and has a solid season at SAM, proving his knee is sound.

14) Ian Gold signs a 25 million, 8.5 million signing bonus contract with Denver in 2005.

15) Ian Gold grants a local interview and the entire situation is published on one of the Denver Bronco reporting websites.

16) Ian Gold gets his old jersey, his old position, the money he wanted the year prior, and DJ Williams is banished to SAM, quite possibly never to be heard from again.

rcsodak
10-20-2005, 11:13 PM
You are aware that Ian Gold himself, first immediately after the 2004 NFL draft on Fox's Best Damn Sports Show, and then upon resigning a year later in Denver, expressly stated what occured in terms of his contract.

Over the last two years, I've provided so many links, its ridiculous.

Javalon and I have battled on this for those two years and through all the evidence I've given, he still remains stubborn and unconvinced. You'd think that because Ian Gold says what happened that would be enough, but no, Jav rebuts that Ian Gold is probably lying. I'm still befuddled by that one.

Anyhow, here's what occured with Ian Gold....one more time....(at least according to Ian Gold)

1) The Broncos were prepared to franchise Ian Gold in order to keep him as he, not Al Wilson, was the LB the team had targeted to resign.

2) Ian Gold tears his ACL

3) Mike Shanahan promises Ian Gold to his face that Ian's knee injury will not affect the contract negotiations.

4) Al Wilson plays tremendous and leads a top 5 defense with backups Sykes and Spragan filling in for the injured Gold and Mobley.

5) Al Wilson receives a 43 million contract extension. The money previously targeted to Ian Gold.

6) Ian Gold is told that he will have to take a reduced contract due to his knee injury and not the 30 million, 12-15 signing bonus, he is requesting. Ian Gold gets pissed off that Shanahan lied to his face.

7) The two sides end talks for several months before resuming talks shortly before the 2004 draft.

8) Talks continue into the draft, Ian Gold believes the Broncos and he have reached a verbal agreement on a contract.

9) Denver suddenly drafts DJ Williams (apparently due to panicking after Micheal Clayton was drafted the pick prior) and Ian Gold is shocked.

10) The team informs Ian Gold they are no longer interested.

11) Ian Gold is now doubly pissed, one that Shanahan and the Broncos tried to make him take a below market deal due to his injury after promising him they would not, and two, that after all that, the sides came to a verbal agreement and the Broncos reneged by drafting DJ Williams.

12) Ian Gold lashes out at the Broncos on FoxSports.

13) Ian Gold signs with Tampa and has a solid season at SAM, proving his knee is sound.

14) Ian Gold signs a 25 million, 8.5 million signing bonus contract with Denver in 2005.

15) Ian Gold grants a local interview and the entire situation is published on one of the Denver Bronco reporting websites.

16) Ian Gold gets his old jersey, his old position, the money he wanted the year prior, and DJ Williams is banished to SAM, quite possibly never to be heard from again.

Mug, I have a problem with #'s 3 & 6.
Shanny MAY have promised Gold that the injury wouldn't be held against him (yeh, right), but nowhere did he say how much they were willing to offer him, right?
In other words.......just because he didn't receive what HE (postons) thought he was worth, in NO way proclaims how much Shanny & Co. thought he was worth.

And this is a topic that I, too, agree with Jav about.....

I never saw/heard these points mentioned this way.....

.....Plus, why would he dump the postons and deal himself a deal with the same team that he was "doubly pissed" with?????

Somthing's not adding up here, mug.......do you not see it? :huh:

Superchop7
10-21-2005, 07:19 AM
Mug, I have a problem with #'s 3 & 6.
Shanny MAY have promised Gold that the injury wouldn't be held against him (yeh, right), but nowhere did he say how much they were willing to offer him, right?
In other words.......just because he didn't receive what HE (postons) thought he was worth, in NO way proclaims how much Shanny & Co. thought he was worth.

And this is a topic that I, too, agree with Jav about.....

I never saw/heard these points mentioned this way.....

.....Plus, why would he dump the postons and deal himself a deal with the same team that he was "doubly pissed" with?????

Somthing's not adding up here, mug.......do you not see it? :huh:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________

Well,.......aren't we a damn ray of sunshine

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-21-2005, 10:14 AM
Mug, I have a problem with #'s 3 & 6.
Shanny MAY have promised Gold that the injury wouldn't be held against him (yeh, right), but nowhere did he say how much they were willing to offer him, right?
In other words.......just because he didn't receive what HE (postons) thought he was worth, in NO way proclaims how much Shanny & Co. thought he was worth.

And this is a topic that I, too, agree with Jav about.....

I never saw/heard these points mentioned this way.....

.....Plus, why would he dump the postons and deal himself a deal with the same team that he was "doubly pissed" with?????

Somthing's not adding up here, mug.......do you not see it? :huh:


#3 was the "main" reason Ian was upset, this one is undebateable as a true blue fact. This was reported over and over word for word with Ian stressing that Shanahan lied to his face that they wouldn't use the injury against him with his next contract. Which is why the Broncos would not give him the 1 year deal to prove his knee was sound, so that he could get his big pay day (which he did get this year). The Broncos line was that he would only be resigned for multiple years on the cheap due to his knee. On draft day, Ian Gold thought he had a 1 year deal worked out, until the moment they drafted Wiliams. You can't have a problem with this one, this one is undeniable, and has been reported word for word.


#6, is where it gets tricky. The exact contract terms. We KNOW the Postons wanted a 12-15 million signing bonus on a 5 year, 30 million contract. Now, if Ian Gold would not have ever been injured, would the team have paid him this amount of money? I think so. Its not a lot of money, just a high signing bonus, so the guaranteed amount is high. (Gold signed with the team this year for 25 million, 8.5 million bonus). So, its about a net save of 5 mil over 5 years for the Broncos. From website reports, from this website for one, the Broncos were prepared to franchise Gold as he was the linebacker, not Al Wilson, that was targeted as the must sign. That changed after the injury to he and Mobley, when Wilson really put the team on his back and became a leader.

My opinion is that we would have paid Gold the money he desired. Al Wilson got 43 million, that money was originally targeted for Ian Gold, which was also part of the reason we drafted Terry Pierce as well. It can be argued whether sans the injury, if the deal would have gotten done or not. That's fine.

What can't be argued is that Shanahan told Ian Gold the injury would not affect the negotiations "to Ian's face". Why? I dont know, but he did. And it can't be argued that the Broncos and Gold discussed a one year contract into the draft up until the very moment DJ Williams was selected. Ian Gold has stated he thought a one year deal was done and was "shocked" at the pick, which in my opinion, means a verbal one year deal was agreed to that was reneged when the Broncos drafted Williams and then told Gold he was not in the teams' plans unless he would take the multi-year deal on the cheap due to his knee injury.

Ian Gold came back to Denver because we were willing to pay him his contract demands. He is now one of the highest paid WLBs in the NFL. I'd come back to my former boss too if he made an apology in the form of a fat paycheck acknowledging my skill level.

But what I claim happened, is exactly what happened. I have never lied nor fabricated a story, nor will I. Publicated proof of the intricies of the dispute may be hard to come by, but this is exactly what happened.

Colorado69
10-21-2005, 06:38 PM
MUG, just because you said it or some journalist reported it doesn't make it fact. Common sense should rule when it comes to Gold and his interactions with the Broncos. It should be obvious that Gold didn't feel shafted or he would have looked elsewhere after the Bucs. Gold is an intelligent young man with strong character, which is one of the main reasons he was drafted by the Broncos. Accept the fact that the Postons were the reasons for his not staying in Denver. Gold is good for the Broncos and the Broncos are good for Gold. He is a strong point on the team in and out of the locker room. His return allowed the defense to improve because of DJ William's ability to play any LB position. Oh, thats right, you didn't like that draft pick. Put your ego back in place and learn from the Bronco's staff, instead of criticizing most of their moves. You haven't appreciated the latest drafts or free-agent moves, for the most part, but those actions are a major reason that they stand at 5-1 and in 1st place in the AFC West. I think the Bronco staff has PROVEN to be better at their jobs than you posing as a Monday Morning QB.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-21-2005, 07:54 PM
MUG, just because you said it or some journalist reported it doesn't make it fact. Common sense should rule when it comes to Gold and his interactions with the Broncos. It should be obvious that Gold didn't feel shafted or he would have looked elsewhere after the Bucs. Gold is an intelligent young man with strong character, which is one of the main reasons he was drafted by the Broncos. Accept the fact that the Postons were the reasons for his not staying in Denver. Gold is good for the Broncos and the Broncos are good for Gold. He is a strong point on the team in and out of the locker room. His return allowed the defense to improve because of DJ William's ability to play any LB position. Oh, thats right, you didn't like that draft pick. Put your ego back in place and learn from the Bronco's staff, instead of criticizing most of their moves. You haven't appreciated the latest drafts or free-agent moves, for the most part, but those actions are a major reason that they stand at 5-1 and in 1st place in the AFC West. I think the Bronco staff has PROVEN to be better at their jobs than you posing as a Monday Morning QB.


You are aware that Ian Gold said all this, not me, correct?

I mean, can you possibly make yourself look like a bigger fool?


And once again, a MMQB makes claims "After" the outcome. I make mine long "before" the outcome. Which means I'm posing as a prognosticator, not a MMQB. :duh:

Javalon
10-21-2005, 09:49 PM
Well, I'm glad I checked this forum which I rarely do. :D

Mat'hir, my biggest problem with your arguments about this whole topic is that you infer a lot of information from very little actual data. The links you have provided never backed up most of your inferred claims. So, what do we actually know about this situation?

1) Ian Gold said that Shanny told him the injury wouldn't affect his future contract. So, this leads to one of three possibilities: A) Gold lied about this, B) Gold misinterpreted the discussion (by a little or a lot?) or C) it happened as Gold claimed. You completely disregard the first two possibilities and take the third as fact simply because you are a fan of Gold. I remain open to any of the three possibilities.

If the third was true, you have agreed with me that the Broncos would have been stupid to follow through. You have to take the injury into consideration when looking at a long-term, big bonus money deal.

2) Gold was upset with Shanny and the Broncos. I agree with that despite the fact that once in Tampa he actually came out and said there were no hard feelings, that it was a business decision, and that he still respected Shanahan and the Broncos organization. Apparently, he was mad for a little while and the quickly got over it.

3) The Postons were looking for a huge signing bonus for a guy coming off a serious knee injury. You think it was a small risk and the Broncos should have ponied up the cash. I disagree and believe any season-ending knee injury is worthy of concern and a large sum of guaranteed money for such a player is a bad idea.

Al Wilson only received a $10 million bonus and he was fully healthy, was coming off of 3 straight Pro Bowls, and was the heart and soul of our defense. Why should Gold have received a $12-$15 million bonus when he was coming off a serious injury, had never been to a Pro Bowl as a linebacker, had only one good season to that point, and our defense had barely skipped a beat without him?

I think the Broncos offered him a fair deal considering his situation. In fact, I doubt he would have gotten what the Postons were asking even if Gold had not been injured. The Postons have a reputation for being completely unreasonable and they lived up to it when representing Gold.

Also note that you still have never given proof that that the Broncos had a verbal agreement with Gold as of draft day and the reneged or even that Gold made that claim. I have no idea where you are getting that idea. And I still have seen nothing that says Gold was seeking a one year deal to "prove himself" and that the Broncos turned him down.




1) The Broncos were prepared to franchise Ian Gold in order to keep him as he, not Al Wilson, was the LB the team had targeted to resign.
Do you have anything to support this?


3) Mike Shanahan promises Ian Gold to his face that Ian's knee injury will not affect the contract negotiations.
See the three possibilities I mentioned above.


5) Al Wilson receives a 43 million contract extension. The money previously targeted to Ian Gold.
How do you know what the Broncos were targeting toward Gold? Do you think the Broncos had given up hope of re-signing Wilson? Because Wilson was definitely more important to our defense than Gold and I believe they would have chosen Wilson in a heartbeat if they could only give one of the two players this contract. It's my belief that the Broncos simply were afraid they wouldn't be able to keep Wilson and thus drafted Pierce as a backup plan and NOT that they valued Gold over Wilson.


6) Ian Gold is told that he will have to take a reduced contract due to his knee injury and not the 30 million, 12-15 signing bonus, he is requesting. Ian Gold gets pissed off that Shanahan lied to his face.
Even if Shanahan told Gold his injury wouldn't affect contract negotiations, that did not mean the sky was the limit in regards to a new contract. If Gold got all pissy because the Broncos and the Postons had different ideas on a "fair" contract, then that was entirely his problem. "Your injury won't be a factor" does NOT equal "We'll pay whatever those damned Postons ask for."


8) Talks continue into the draft, Ian Gold believes the Broncos and he have reached a verbal agreement on a contract.
Again, do you have any evidence for this? All I've seen is that he thought things could still be worked out until the last minute, not that an exact agreement had been verbalized.


11) Ian Gold is now doubly pissed, one that Shanahan and the Broncos tried to make him take a below market deal due to his injury after promising him they would not, and two, that after all that, the sides came to a verbal agreement and the Broncos reneged by drafting DJ Williams.
A) Again, one of three possibilities. B) What verbal agreement?


16) Ian Gold gets his old jersey, his old position, the money he wanted the year prior
Regardless of how it happened, the Broncos were smart to not give that huge signing bonus to Gold and now he's back on the team and playing very well. I doubt I'll ever agree to your version of how these events transpired unless you provide some real proof and not just your interpretation.

But even if you do come up with said proof, all that really matters to me now is that Gold is back with the Broncos and he seems very happy, and the Broncos are happy, and thus I am also happy. :beer:

Pandapeep
10-21-2005, 10:31 PM
Nah, we need no d-line. Stats don't mean anything. Our D-Line is a prime reason we are 5-1, and the Saints are wha? Like 2-4 or something? I stopped caring. I would have rooted for them had they tried to be good. Anyway, Lenny kinda is sucking, but still he has value considering Champ is hurt. And both our first round picks? Ha, if we deal our 2 first round picks we'd better get a first class wide-out.

Also, getting baack to the Gold thing, DJ is going to have a great future in the NFL and uh, I can't picture any one wanting to keep Gold over Al. And, now we got Ian back, so we have one of the best linebacking cores in the NFL. So, drop the nonsense and realize the past is past.

If we were able to trade, which we can, due to the trade deadline being passed, we should have traded for a Safety or a Wide Out. Our D-line is fine, and I bet at least one of them will make the pro bowl.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-22-2005, 10:18 AM
Well, I'm glad I checked this forum which I rarely do. :D

Mat'hir, my biggest problem with your arguments about this whole topic is that you infer a lot of information from very little actual data. The links you have provided never backed up most of your inferred claims. So, what do we actually know about this situation?

1) Ian Gold said that Shanny told him the injury wouldn't affect his future contract. So, this leads to one of three possibilities: A) Gold lied about this, B) Gold misinterpreted the discussion (by a little or a lot?) or C) it happened as Gold claimed. You completely disregard the first two possibilities and take the third as fact simply because you are a fan of Gold. I remain open to any of the three possibilities.

If the third was true, you have agreed with me that the Broncos would have been stupid to follow through. You have to take the injury into consideration when looking at a long-term, big bonus money deal.

2) Gold was upset with Shanny and the Broncos. I agree with that despite the fact that once in Tampa he actually came out and said there were no hard feelings, that it was a business decision, and that he still respected Shanahan and the Broncos organization. Apparently, he was mad for a little while and the quickly got over it.

3) The Postons were looking for a huge signing bonus for a guy coming off a serious knee injury. You think it was a small risk and the Broncos should have ponied up the cash. I disagree and believe any season-ending knee injury is worthy of concern and a large sum of guaranteed money for such a player is a bad idea.

Al Wilson only received a $10 million bonus and he was fully healthy, was coming off of 3 straight Pro Bowls, and was the heart and soul of our defense. Why should Gold have received a $12-$15 million bonus when he was coming off a serious injury, had never been to a Pro Bowl as a linebacker, had only one good season to that point, and our defense had barely skipped a beat without him?

I think the Broncos offered him a fair deal considering his situation. In fact, I doubt he would have gotten what the Postons were asking even if Gold had not been injured. The Postons have a reputation for being completely unreasonable and they lived up to it when representing Gold.

Also note that you still have never given proof that that the Broncos had a verbal agreement with Gold as of draft day and the reneged or even that Gold made that claim. I have no idea where you are getting that idea. And I still have seen nothing that says Gold was seeking a one year deal to "prove himself" and that the Broncos turned him down.




Do you have anything to support this?


See the three possibilities I mentioned above.


How do you know what the Broncos were targeting toward Gold? Do you think the Broncos had given up hope of re-signing Wilson? Because Wilson was definitely more important to our defense than Gold and I believe they would have chosen Wilson in a heartbeat if they could only give one of the two players this contract. It's my belief that the Broncos simply were afraid they wouldn't be able to keep Wilson and thus drafted Pierce as a backup plan and NOT that they valued Gold over Wilson.


Even if Shanahan told Gold his injury wouldn't affect contract negotiations, that did not mean the sky was the limit in regards to a new contract. If Gold got all pissy because the Broncos and the Postons had different ideas on a "fair" contract, then that was entirely his problem. "Your injury won't be a factor" does NOT equal "We'll pay whatever those damned Postons ask for."


Again, do you have any evidence for this? All I've seen is that he thought things could still be worked out until the last minute, not that an exact agreement had been verbalized.


A) Again, one of three possibilities. B) What verbal agreement?


Regardless of how it happened, the Broncos were smart to not give that huge signing bonus to Gold and now he's back on the team and playing very well. I doubt I'll ever agree to your version of how these events transpired unless you provide some real proof and not just your interpretation.

But even if you do come up with said proof, all that really matters to me now is that Gold is back with the Broncos and he seems very happy, and the Broncos are happy, and thus I am also happy. :beer:


Javalon, you frustrate me on this topic to no end because I HAVE provided proof for every bit of my claims. I am not sure why in God's name you think I'm making this up, or why you try and spin what Ian Gold himself has publically stated as him lying, I don't understand it at all.

I will swear on my life, your life, your wife's life, any hope I have to go to heavon over hell, anything you want, but you damn well know I do not lie, will not lie, and more importantly, what exactly happened with Ian Gold as I've documented it in detail for two years.

The pure absurdity of your claim that Ian Gold can confuse when Shanahan tells him to his face that his injury won't impact his negotiations, or that he someone misunderstood those point blank words, is asinine. You're digging for any conceivable chance to circumvent what occured. I can't help you. I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt what occured concerning Ian Gold and the Broncos.

I'll, once again, go digging, and once again, I'll provide what evidence I can. And once again, if I show you the sky is blue, you'll argue that its really brown because the scientists might be lying about the colors.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-22-2005, 12:11 PM
http://www.denverbroncos.com/resources/custom/mediaroom/clippings/Individual%20Clippings/gold_ian.pdf

This is 68 pages on every Ian Gold article typed by the Denver Press. Start at the bottom, work your way up to the present. Roughly in the middle, is when it starts to go into detail concerning the occurences with Ian Gold and the Broncos on the 2004 draft day.

Look for these two in particular:

Bucs beat Broncos to Gold - Denver Post - Patrick Saunders
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - Linebacker Ian Gold officially became a Tampa Bay Buccaneer on Wednesday, but until the NFL draft Saturday there was a legitimate chance he would re-sign with the Broncos. The story of when and how those last-minute negotiations collapsed depends on whom you ask.

Tampa Bay strikes Gold - Rocky Mountain News - Lee Rasizer
April 29, 2004 - Ian Gold can pinpoint the exact moment his chances to stick with the Denver Broncos ended. He had to hark back only to Saturday to identify the official time of the breakup.


Other Information/Pay site clips:

1) Al Wilson's contract was 43 million, 12 million signing bonus for 7 years.

2) Re: the verbal agreement

The Broncos extended an initial contract offer early in Free Agency which was 5 years, 18.5 million, 3 million signing bonus, well below market price for Ian Gold. This was due to injury concerns and trying to get him on the cheap. Ian Gold refused, the Broncos pulled the offer.

As draft day neared, and as Ian Gold had not yet received a substantial multi-year contract offer, the Broncos re-extended their initial offer in hopes a frustrated Gold was accept. He didn't. He went public with the knowledge that he was promised his knee would not hamper a long term extension with the Broncos, but that the organization lied to him. This put pressure on the organization from a public relations stand point.

The team and Gold then turned to a potential one year deal, where Gold could prove his knee was sound, and then receive his big pay day in 2005. The team had previously been opposed to a one year deal, instead demanding Gold take the injury reduced contract the team offered.

Ian Gold stated he believed the two sides had verbally agreed to the boundaries of a one year contract and he expected it to be finalized shortly after the draft. The discussions were still ongoing the day of the draft. Ted Sundquist admits discussions were ongoing the day of the draft, up to two hours before the draft, but stated that Gold rejected the teams offer at that time, submitting a counterproposal requiring more haggling. The parameters of a deal were in place.

The team tried to trade up from 17th to 14th with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to draft Mike Clayton, the WR from LSU. Tampa Bay required a 2nd round selection, the Broncos were only willing to part with a 3rd round selection. When Tampa selected Clayton, the highest rated player remaining on the Broncos draft board was DJ Williams, a LB. He was available at pick 17, they took him. It was at that point that Ian Gold, surprised by the selection, knew the Broncos had decided to forego him. His agents were immediately informed that the parameters and agreed upon portions of a contract with Ian Gold were being revoked, and Shanahan's reneging on his own face to face promise to Ian Gold to get him signed and that his knee injury would not be a factor in a contract extension was fully realized.


3) http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=162&p=2&c=242749


At the onset of free agency, the Denver Broncos had to make a choice between linebackers Al Wilson, who they signed to a $43 million contract or Ian Gold who might be the second best linebacker next to Ray Lewis playing in the NFL today.

Gold was jolted by Broncos Head Coach and "General Manager" Mike Shanahan after the season ended. Gold went down with a season ending injury but Shanahan promised Gold that would not be a deterrent in signing him to a new long term contract.

Well it was and Gold has worked the free agent market thus far with little coin thrown his way. Shanahan put the hex on him and hes hoping to get him back for a bargain basement price plus incentives. But Gold to date is not interested.


4) http://www.profootballtalk.com/2-16-04through2-29-04.htm

GOLD NOT GLITTERING OVER BRONCOS TACTICS


Linebacker Ian Gold is mad.

He's angry because, when he tore an ACL in October of the final year of his contract with the Broncos, the team told him that the injury wouldn't affect negotiations on a long-term extension.

And he now thinks that the Broncos are using the injury against him at the bargaining table.

The real issue here might not be the effects of the injury on the offer, but the amount of money that Gold is demanding through his agents, the Postons.

Specifically, we've heard that the Postons want a signing bonus worth up to $15 million.

Faced with such a demand, it's no surprise that the Broncos, burned in the past by the aftershocks of ACL surgery (see Davis, Terrell), are willing to see what kind of price Gold will fetch on the open market.

"That's kind of a slap in the face," Gold said regarding the team's request that he give them a chance to match any other deals he might be able to secure in free agency.

Maybe Gold will have some numbers to share with the Broncos even before the official conclusion of his contractual obligation in Denver.

"Now that we're getting closer to free agency, teams are starting to call my agent and I'm starting to really feel wanted again, and that's a good feeling," said Gold.

Can anyone say "tampering"?

We'd normally assume that the Redskins would be one of the teams interested in Gold, given their recent release of Jesse Armstead. But the blow-up between the Postons and the 'Skins regarding that alleged $6.5 million discrepancy in LaVar Arrington's contract might be an impediment to future dealings between the Postons and the Redskins, at least in the short term.

Unless, of course, those allegations by the Postons really were nothing more than an effort to throw the NFL bloodhounds off the scent in the rumored investigation of under-the-table payments being made in connection with the Arrington deal.


I'll find more later, going to the beach.

Colorado69
10-22-2005, 12:12 PM
MUG, if you had given PROOF to support your views, there would be no argument. Your OPINION isn't PROOF!! You let your ego roll so often that everything you say must be taken with some skepticism. You are not good at prognosticating because you fail to give the full picture. Too often you make rediculas statements degrading the Bronco staff and that will always bring negative comments from loyal Bronco fans. I enjoy reading most of your posts, but you need to be reminded that you are only an uninformed fan. NONE of us is more qualified or better informed than the Bronco staff. Once you admit that FACT, I'll stop calling you a MMQB. It an easy call, as you are a classic at "I told you so" and calling people fools when you are wearing the shoe yourself. I love football and have been involved in the sport at various levels for decades, but I realize that it is not my career and that I am just an interested and loyal fan. If you supported the organization as much as you criticize it, you would be a happy fan. The Broncos are a class organization with a winning heritage. Many NFL teams can't say that.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-22-2005, 12:17 PM
MUG, if you had given PROOF to support your views, there would be no argument. Your OPINION isn't PROOF!! You let your ego roll so often that everything you say must be taken with some skepticism. You are not good at prognosticating because you fail to give the full picture. Too often you make rediculas statements degrading the Bronco staff and that will always bring negative comments from loyal Bronco fans. I enjoy reading most of your posts, but you need to be reminded that you are only an uninformed fan. NONE of us is more qualified or better informed than the Bronco staff. Once you admit that FACT, I'll stop calling you a MMQB. It an easy call, as you are a classic at "I told you so" and calling people fools when you are wearing the shoe yourself. I love football and have been involved in the sport at various levels for decades, but I realize that it is not my career and that I am just an interested and loyal fan. If you supported the organization as much as you criticize it, you would be a happy fan. The Broncos are a class organization with a winning heritage. Many NFL teams can't say that.


RE: proof, see above post.

TXBRONC
10-22-2005, 06:06 PM
MUG, if you had given PROOF to support your views, there would be no argument. Your OPINION isn't PROOF!! You let your ego roll so often that everything you say must be taken with some skepticism. You are not good at prognosticating because you fail to give the full picture. Too often you make rediculas statements degrading the Bronco staff and that will always bring negative comments from loyal Bronco fans. I enjoy reading most of your posts, but you need to be reminded that you are only an uninformed fan. NONE of us is more qualified or better informed than the Bronco staff. Once you admit that FACT, I'll stop calling you a MMQB. It an easy call, as you are a classic at "I told you so" and calling people fools when you are wearing the shoe yourself. I love football and have been involved in the sport at various levels for decades, but I realize that it is not my career and that I am just an interested and loyal fan. If you supported the organization as much as you criticize it, you would be a happy fan. The Broncos are a class organization with a winning heritage. Many NFL teams can't say that.

The fact is none of the articles prove that Gold was lied to not in the least. The articles in question are speculative based on Gold impressions of what happen not any of those I have went through ever have the organizations point of view. Also if Gold was so upset why in heaven's name would he come back to the organization that screwed him over? Although I cannot remember for sure where I read it, I seem to remember that Gold was quoted as saying he had no hard feelings and understood it was a business decision.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-23-2005, 04:49 AM
The fact is none of the articles prove that Gold was lied to not in the least. The articles in question are speculative based on Gold impressions of what happen not any of those I have went through ever have the organizations point of view. Also if Gold was so upset why in heaven's name would he come back to the organization that screwed him over? Although I cannot remember for sure where I read it, I seem to remember that Gold was quoted as saying he had no hard feelings and understood it was a business decision.


What is with you and Javalon?!

Ian Gold is a class act, he's not lying about what occured. Jesus Christ, you guys are freakin' ridiculous. You want to know what happened, I tell you what happened. For some reason, you guys think I care enough about this situation to lie about what happened *boggle*.

Then I link to you no less then 30 articles, most in PDF format on the top link, that detail exactly what occured. I've been doing this for two years.

The great rebuttal for being absolutely wrong is that Ian Gold is lying???

Yeah, that really sounds like Ian Gold. :duh:


You want the organization's perspective??? Look at their actions....

They re-sign the guy immediately upon the opening of the FA season for a huge contract. 5 years, 23 million, 8.5 million signing bonus, AND 5 million in roster bonuses over the first two years. Ian Gold is guaranteed 13 million dollars, Reggie Heyward is only guaranteed 10 million on his contract.

That's very very close to what the Poston's were asking for. And is well above what the team offered him last year. Looks like one hell of an apology to me.

BroncoRT
10-23-2005, 09:44 AM
You guys sound like a bunch of gossiping ladies with this he said she said crap. Well Shanny lied... no Ian lied...who cares!!! :ugh: He is on the team now and everything is all good. :coffee:

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-23-2005, 11:05 AM
You guys sound like a bunch of gossiping ladies with this he said she said crap. Well Shanny lied... no Ian lied...who cares!!! :ugh: He is on the team now and everything is all good. :coffee:


I care. I've been called a liar for two years now and slandered because somehow my "ego" is involved with simply informing fellow posters about what occured.

I also care because those action's were a black mark on an otherwise top notch organization. However, it appears they made up for it by giving Gold the contract he wanted all along. So, while it never should have happened, they did fix it a year later at least.

Finally, I care because due to this whole bungling of the situation, we had to waste a 1st round pick on a SAM LB, whom is on pace for 40 tackles and absolutely hates playing SAM. We forewent many defensive line stalwarts, namely Wilfork, Smith, or Udeze. If the team would have kept its promise, Gold would have been signed to an extension in 2003, and we would be a better team now because we would have drafted a player who is more productive from the 1st round of the 2004 draft.

BroncoRT
10-23-2005, 12:24 PM
I care. I've been called a liar for two years now and slandered because somehow my "ego" is involved with simply informing fellow posters about what occured.

I also care because those action's were a black mark on an otherwise top notch organization. However, it appears they made up for it by giving Gold the contract he wanted all along. So, while it never should have happened, they did fix it a year later at least.

Finally, I care because due to this whole bungling of the situation, we had to waste a 1st round pick on a SAM LB, whom is on pace for 40 tackles and absolutely hates playing SAM. We forewent many defensive line stalwarts, namely Wilfork, Smith, or Udeze. If the team would have kept its promise, Gold would have been signed to an extension in 2003, and we would be a better team now because we would have drafted a player who is more productive from the 1st round of the 2004 draft.


Very true, but you guys have to end this thing soon and call it a draw, because you are both stubborn bastrards that won't change your minds. J/K :D

rcsodak
10-26-2005, 08:52 PM
What is with you and Javalon?!

Ian Gold is a class act, he's not lying about what occured. Jesus Christ, you guys are freakin' ridiculous. You want to know what happened, I tell you what happened. For some reason, you guys think I care enough about this situation to lie about what happened *boggle*.

Then I link to you no less then 30 articles, most in PDF format on the top link, that detail exactly what occured. I've been doing this for two years.

The great rebuttal for being absolutely wrong is that Ian Gold is lying???

Yeah, that really sounds like Ian Gold. :duh:


You want the organization's perspective??? Look at their actions....

They re-sign the guy immediately upon the opening of the FA season for a huge contract. 5 years, 23 million, 8.5 million signing bonus, AND 5 million in roster bonuses over the first two years. Ian Gold is guaranteed 13 million dollars, Reggie Heyward is only guaranteed 10 million on his contract.

That's very very close to what the Poston's were asking for. And is well above what the team offered him last year. Looks like one hell of an apology to me.
Two things mug......
1. Again! I don't see where it says Gold was OFFERED what the poston's were asking.....that's what I said earlier, and Jav also said.
This is no way is saying Shanny LIED about not bringing the injury into the equation. It's being money smart!

2. Your first paragraph from above quotes: "depending on who you listen to".
Wouldn't that infer that there was a difference between what Gold was saying, and what the Broncos were saying? You'd believe Gold (Postons) before you would Shanny?
Why?

I'll make this three, I guess....

3. And just because Denver is paying Gold what you say amounts to what he was asking for in the beginning, does NOT mean it's a concilliatory action.
More likely, it's what they felt he deserved, having PROVED the previous year, that his knee was healed and he was STILL a top-notch LB.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-26-2005, 10:36 PM
Two things mug......
1. Again! I don't see where it says Gold was OFFERED what the poston's were asking.....that's what I said earlier, and Jav also said.
This is no way is saying Shanny LIED about not bringing the injury into the equation. It's being money smart!

2. Your first paragraph from above quotes: "depending on who you listen to".
Wouldn't that infer that there was a difference between what Gold was saying, and what the Broncos were saying? You'd believe Gold (Postons) before you would Shanny?
Why?

I'll make this three, I guess....

3. And just because Denver is paying Gold what you say amounts to what he was asking for in the beginning, does NOT mean it's a concilliatory action.
More likely, it's what they felt he deserved, having PROVED the previous year, that his knee was healed and he was STILL a top-notch LB.


1) Personally, I think you have to take injuries into consideration. There is no doubt however that Shanahan told Ian Gold *his* injury would not be part of the equation and that later turned out to be false. Also, Ian Gold was not offered what the Poston's were asking. They wanted a 12-15 million signing bonus and a 5 year, 30 million dollar deal. Denver's best offer was 18 million, 3 million signing bonus. They did reach parameters on a one year deal, but I have no idea what the parameters were, just that the Broncos reneged when Mark Clayton was drafted.

2) Well, here's the deal. Gold was very vocal and critical of the situation, the Broncos stayed quiet. They never made a statement, period. However, I believe the fact they paid Ian Gold so much money, over what they offered the year prior, and the fact they negotiated with him in the first place obviously show he was not lying. The last thing an organization is going to do is resign a guy that publically sh*tcanned the organization unless his criticism was valid. It's a bit circumstantial, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind when you look at the circumstances in totality. All Shanahan has ever said on it was that he was going to get Ian Gold signed, guaranteed. He didn't. But he did get him the next year.

3) See above. Again, the last thing you're going to do is resign a player and give him a huge raise after he publically criticized the organization UNLESS the player was telling the truth. And Ian Gold's only going to come back to Denver after feeling slighted if he received some form of an apology and it certainly looks like he did in terms of money. He did not have a great year in Tampa at all. To go from 5 years and 18 million, 3 million signing bonus to 5 years, 25 million, 8.5 million signing bonus, 5 million roster bonus (13 guaranteed million total) sure looks like SOMEBODY was saying they were wrong to me.

FDigglefan
10-27-2005, 08:03 AM
to the guy that started the thread....

why would the Saints trade Smith, who they spent a high first-rounder on a year ago, when they can just let Darren Howard walk, or franchise him (again) and actually trade him this year

Javalon
10-29-2005, 12:00 AM
Mat'hir, giving you the benefit of the doubt (considering I don't even know you) I have not called you a liar. Rather, I believe you have jumped to a bunch of conclusions based on insufficient data and then state your beliefs as though they are fact. But while your deductions seem conclusive to you, they do not to me.

Glancing through your links in this thread, I didn't notice anything new and so I'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on this matter. While it's possible events transpired as you believe, I'm of the opinion that there are many other possibilities. Barring any evidence of a more concrete nature, I doubt I'll ever know exactly what happened.

As this topic is obviously boring others with its repetitious nature, I see no need to continue this pointless contention. I keep intending to drop the matter but then it pops up in unexpected places and I find myself drawn in yet again. Hopefully this will be the last time but that hasn't been the case yet. :D

Ciao!

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-29-2005, 01:32 AM
Mat'hir, giving you the benefit of the doubt (considering I don't even know you) I have not called you a liar. Rather, I believe you have jumped to a bunch of conclusions based on insufficient data and then state your beliefs as though they are fact. But while your deductions seem conclusive to you, they do not to me.

Glancing through your links in this thread, I didn't notice anything new and so I'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on this matter. While it's possible events transpired as you believe, I'm of the opinion that there are many other possibilities. Barring any evidence of a more concrete nature, I doubt I'll ever know exactly what happened.

As this topic is obviously boring others with its repetitious nature, I see no need to continue this pointless contention. I keep intending to drop the matter but then it pops up in unexpected places and I find myself drawn in yet again. Hopefully this will be the last time but that hasn't been the case yet. :D

Ciao!

It doesn't get much more concrete then from the mouth of the man involved in the negotiations. I know you are clinging to this entire "Ian Gold is lying spiel" but come on. Especially when the organization has never refuted what Ian Gold claimed happened. Infact, the organization instead resigned him to a vastly similar contract to what he asked for the year prior. If Ian Gold was "lying" in his slander of Shanahan and the organization, do you really believe they'd want him back?

Claiming Gold is lying strikes me as asinine. Clinging to that claim when every single piece of circumstantial evidence suggests Gold was telling the truth is even more befuddleing.

I never did understand why anyone argued with me about what occured. It wasn't like it was a big secret, it was made a huge public spectacle a few days after the draft.

jletourneau
10-29-2005, 09:04 AM
Something very valid that has not been mentioned enough is the fact that there IS a reason why this year Gold decided to do his own negotiating.

MUG, you call everyone else stubborn, but what do you think you are being on this subject. ALL of us need to realize that when it comes to these behind closed doors matters, we never know for sure.

Gold would not have fired the Postons and not hired another agent unless he had in some way felt burned by what happened, not just by the Broncos, but by his negotiators. The Postons are known for their tactics that put teams off, that's why they have lost so many clients and Gold obviously grew tired of something they did, and placed a substantial amount of blame on them, not just the Broncos.

The whole thing to me, sounds like two different perspectives of the same situation by both Gold and Shanny. Perhaps neither is lying, perhaps they are both right in what they did. Perhaps the Postons lied to both sides or at the very least totally BOTCHED communications, perhaps Gold knew this later and realized that Shanny and the Broncos were not the one's he was mad at. Perhaps Shanahan realized this too, not to mention saw that Ian was now healthy.

None of us know for sure, just because of what Ian or Shanny or someone else said. The Postons are the wild card in this and they are out of the picture. Negotiating without an agent is considered VERY risky business in the NFL and Ian took what was looked at as a HUGE risk doing such, though he did a very good job.

But for Ian to take that chance, something very frustrating must have happened in his experience with agents. He must have felt they got in the way in an unnecessary way.

To me, this story as much as has been reported over the last couple years, and I too followed each story as has been listed about what happened over the time, reeks of a different perspectives of the same situation and horrid communication.

Put two witnesses in a convenience store to witness the same crime, and they might very well view it and later interpret it in very different ways. That's human nature. We all have different perspectives, and none of our perspectives are perfect, no matter how much we think they are. One person saw the crime committed by someone wearing a dark blue hat, the other thought it was black. Both can only go by what their eyes have told them, but what if the truth was their were two perpetrators in the store, one wore dark blue and the other wore black. They were both right, just some miscommunication and stubbornness along the way.

I believe Ian Gold is telling the truth of what he has said and what he knows, but I don't think he has said everything that has happened, and I don't think he knows everything either. Neither have or do the Broncos. Both were burned by a middle man, and both found a contract agreement very quickly and very easily when that middle man was removed.

I know one thing from observation, there was a lot of bad communication in the first negotiations and a lot of things didn't go smoothly. The Postons were removed, and negotiations happened with flying colors and no prior feelings in the way. Something tells me, that none of us know the whole story, that Gold doesn't know the whole story, and that the Broncos don't know the whole story. I would say the Postons pulled some dirty tricks on both sides for their own benefit, gambled, lost, and therefore lost a big client when said client realized he had been represented poorly.

The gist IMO, none of us know the WHOLE truth. Unless of course you are that middle man and your real name is Carl or Kevin Poston. If so, sorry you lost such a great client. He did a great job without them.

If we're looking to place blame and find a liar in this, remember this, Ian Gold came back to the Broncos, he left the Postons. There is a reason why he made those decisions. Actions speak very loudly right there.

BroncoRT
10-29-2005, 09:24 AM
Something very valid that has not been mentioned enough is the fact that there IS a reason why this year Gold decided to do his own negotiating.

MUG, you call everyone else stubborn, but what do you think you are being on this subject. ALL of us need to realize that when it comes to these behind closed doors matters, we never know for sure.

Gold would not have fired the Postons and not hired another agent unless he had in some way felt burned by what happened, not just by the Broncos, but by his negotiators. The Postons are known for their tactics that put teams off, that's why they have lost so many clients and Gold obviously grew tired of something they did, and placed a substantial amount of blame on them, not just the Broncos.

The whole thing to me, sounds like two different perspectives of the same situation by both Gold and Shanny. Perhaps neither is lying, perhaps they are both right in what they did. Perhaps the Postons lied to both sides or at the very least totally BOTCHED communications, perhaps Gold knew this later and realized that Shanny and the Broncos were not the one's he was mad at. Perhaps Shanahan realized this too, not to mention saw that Ian was now healthy.

None of us know for sure, just because of what Ian or Shanny or someone else said. The Postons are the wild card in this and they are out of the picture. Negotiating without an agent is considered VERY risky business in the NFL and Ian took what was looked at as a HUGE risk doing such, though he did a very good job.

But for Ian to take that chance, something very frustrating must have happened in his experience with agents. He must have felt they got in the way in an unnecessary way.

To me, this story as much as has been reported over the last couple years, and I too followed each story as has been listed about what happened over the time, reeks of a different perspectives of the same situation and horrid communication.

Put two witnesses in a convenience store to witness the same crime, and they might very well view it and later interpret it in very different ways. That's human nature. We all have different perspectives, and none of our perspectives are perfect, no matter how much we think they are. One person saw the crime committed by someone wearing a dark blue hat, the other thought it was black. Both can only go by what their eyes have told them, but what if the truth was their were two perpetrators in the store, one wore dark blue and the other wore black. They were both right, just some miscommunication and stubbornness along the way.

I believe Ian Gold is telling the truth of what he has said and what he knows, but I don't think he has said everything that has happened, and I don't think he knows everything either. Neither have or do the Broncos. Both were burned by a middle man, and both found a contract agreement very quickly and very easily when that middle man was removed.

I know one thing from observation, there was a lot of bad communication in the first negotiations and a lot of things didn't go smoothly. The Postons were removed, and negotiations happened with flying colors and no prior feelings in the way. Something tells me, that none of us know the whole story, that Gold doesn't know the whole story, and that the Broncos don't know the whole story. I would say the Postons pulled some dirty tricks on both sides for their own benefit, gambled, lost, and therefore lost a big client when said client realized he had been represented poorly.

The gist IMO, none of us know the WHOLE truth. Unless of course you are that middle man and your real name is Carl or Kevin Poston. If so, sorry you lost such a great client. He did a great job without them.

If we're looking to place blame and find a liar in this, remember this, Ian Gold came back to the Broncos, he left the Postons. There is a reason why he made those decisions. Actions speak very loudly right there.

Good post...a lot of the time the agents have to do more with negotiations than the players and mangagement. Mug and Jav are concentrating on Shanny vs Gold, but the agents could be more of a factor. Shanny is pretty stubborn and doesn't like to deal with certain agents...Rosenhaus for example. Any way you look at it, nobody knows the whole truth. :coffee:

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-29-2005, 12:57 PM
Let me explain better what Javalon and I are disagreeing on.

I understand your point, and it was the Poston's "fault" that Ian Gold and the Broncos could not come to a "long term" contract agreement at that point in time. That's a given, there is no doubt as to why the contract did not get done.

Javalon and I share that view, I think its only common sense.

Javalon and I are arguing over whether Shanahan lied to Ian Gold about his knee not being a factor in the upcoming negotiations (this is indisputable, he did), but moreso, we are arguing about whether the Broncos and Ian Gold agreed in principle to a one year contract the day of the draft, only to have the Broncos renege when Mark Clayton was drafted, and they panicked and took DJ Williams, who was their highest rated player on the board, which shocked and angered Ian Gold because contract parameters had been reached due to all night negotiating ending several hours before the draft. (This is the Ian Gold view, the Broncos organization has never commented other then to admit to the negotiations going up until the draft).

It just agitates me because this is what happened. And the rebuttal that "Ian Gold is a liar" is just sad.

That's all Javalon and I are arguing over. I've given Ian Gold's views of the event straight from his mouth, I've given tons of circumstantial evidence which increases the reliability of Gold's comments. Javalon's given nothing but "Ian Gold is lying". No quotes from the organization on the matter, no quotes from Shanahan on the matter, absolutely zero circumstantial evidence (because it all supports Ian Gold) on the matter. I mean...come on. We've argued for two years and I know its hard to back down after all that time...but come on...


Now, the part that I really enjoy is just how it all played out.

- The Postons wanted a 5 year, 30 million contract, with a 15 million signing bonus. The Broncos countered with a 4 year, 18 million, 3 million signing bonus due to "knee" concerns.

- This offseason the Broncos pay Ian Gold 5 years, 25 million, 8.5 million signing bonus, 5 million in roster bonuses. (Total bonuses of 13.5 million guaranteed).

- I guess the Poston's werent too far off in their contract demands.

But, the even better part is....

- That all the individuals that argued emphatically that DJ Williams is much better then Ian Gold and the team would be better off ...yada yada yada....well, they couldn't have been proven more wrong. That's satisfying in itself. But I'm cheering for DJ, I think there's still an outside chance he breaks 50 tackles this season, maybe he will even get a sack. :coffee:

jletourneau
10-29-2005, 03:52 PM
MUG, I think you're missing my point regarding the Poston brothers.

I am not just saying that it was there fault as to the contract.

I am saying that the Poston's could have largely been responsible for some of the things that went on between Gold and the Broncos. I am saying that it is possible that you and Javalon are both right in this situation and that Gold and the Broncos were both right as well.

Gold's interpretation of things and Denver's interpretation of things could be very different even though only one scenario took place. Have you ever said something to someone with good or no specific intentions at heart and realized that because of their own perception they took it the complete opposite way from which it was intended? The Poston's most likely were a fog for both sides.

The Poston's very likely may have lied to both parties, so that neither party has it exactly straight. Shanny and Gold might have had some face to face commitments to one another, but who knows what happened or was said after that. A lot of Gold's information might be coming from the Poston's and not just his conversation with Shanny. Gold might not be lying intentionally, I doubt he is, but he might not have known the whole truth at the time when these stories were breaking. That's the nature of agents and it's the nature of the Poston's for sure from what has been consistently reported. Just look at Drew Rosenhaus, he's lied straight through his hind quarters over and over again for T.O.

I don't believe Gold would be lying to us, but, there is certainly more to the story than we know. We have not heard from the Broncos on this, and they rarely speak out in regards to players. It has happened twice I believe. First, regarding Trevor Pryce and Shanny's attempt to light a fire under his butt. Second, with good ol' pancake boy Daryl Gardener and his obvious attempt to disrupt the whole organization.

Anyway, you and Jav could both be right in this scenario, because Shanny and Gold had a middle man as a part of much of the negotiations, start to finish, and that middle man likely relayed mistruths to BOTH sides. I'm not just blaming the Poston's, I'm saying that they could be at the center of the two specifics you are arguing about.

Perhaps Shanny and Gold did have the said conversation regarding his knee having no affect on the contract status. But then imagine the Poston's making up some ridiculous claim on Ian's behalf when they went back to Shanahan in an attempt to get more, that is their style, i.e. LaVar Arrington.

Or imagine at the draft the Poston's got on the phone with Shanny and said Ian's not willing to take a one year deal, when in reality he was, and Shanny had to react in due time while on the clock and draft D.J. Williams.

The Poston's played a role in this in which we will never know. So there is no saying that only one of you is right. Yes, I've heard what Ian's said, I've read the reports for two years now, but that does not change the fact that Ian himself could have been lied to by the Poston's, and Mike Shanahan could have been lied to as well.

The bottom line is, unless you can prove that you were in the rooms with Gold, Shanny and the Poston's, no one will ever know the whole truth, just different perspectives and interpretations of what was told to them. Ian might have said everything he knows 100% truthfully, but that doesn't mean that at the time even he knew the whole story either.

rcsodak
10-30-2005, 09:53 AM
Let me explain better what Javalon and I are disagreeing on.


Javalon and I share ......only common sense.

It just agitates me because this is what happened. And the rebuttal that "Ian Gold is a liar" is just sad.

That's all Javalon and I are arguing over. I've given Ian Gold's views of the event straight from his mouth, I've given tons of circumstantial evidence which increases the reliability of Gold's comments. Javalon's given nothing but "Ian Gold is lying". No quotes from the organization on the matter, no quotes from Shanahan on the matter, absolutely zero circumstantial evidence (because it all supports Ian Gold) on the matter. I mean...come on. We've argued for two years and I know its hard to back down after all that time...but come on...


Now, the part that I really enjoy is just how it all played out.

- The Postons wanted a 5 year, 30 million contract, with a 15 million signing bonus. The Broncos countered with a 4 year, 18 million, 3 million signing bonus due to "knee" concerns.

- This offseason the Broncos pay Ian Gold 5 years, 25 million, 8.5 million signing bonus, 5 million in roster bonuses. (Total bonuses of 13.5 million guaranteed).

- I guess the Poston's werent too far off in their contract demands.



Mug...are you sure you want to be a lawyer? :eek:

You're 'resting' on circumstantial evidence?
How does that "increase" reliability?

And where is it anybody 'accused' Gold of lying?

And the money thing?
Remember to take into account, the FACT that it's a different year....different 'cap' numbers....etc

I think you just lost some credibility with your last post..........

....you sound more like a beat PD trying to do/say anything to get that big settlement ......

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-30-2005, 01:40 PM
Mug...are you sure you want to be a lawyer? :eek:

You're 'resting' on circumstantial evidence?
How does that "increase" reliability?

And where is it anybody 'accused' Gold of lying?

And the money thing?
Remember to take into account, the FACT that it's a different year....different 'cap' numbers....etc

I think you just lost some credibility with your last post..........

....you sound more like a beat PD trying to do/say anything to get that big settlement ......

Circumstantial evidence and relevance is the backbone of law and precedent. If you're really interested in how it works, please refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically 401-412.

Obviously, you've never taken legal courses, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Send a PM to Cugel for verification.

If this was a trial, Ian Gold's testimony would be allowed in, as would the Broncos subsequent action of giving him the contract he initially demanded. A "reasonable" person would not hire a man that publically slandered him unless those statements were true. This circumstantial evidence is highly relevant as it makes the liklihood that Ian Gold's statements are truthful more likely and the prejudicial value is almost nil. This is the 403(b) weighing test.

But, please continue to be a couch lawyer, I'm sure you know best.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-30-2005, 01:53 PM
Ok, JLet, I think your argument is sound from a logical perspective. However, the Postons can't lie to their clients or to the Broncos, they would have their agent license revoked. They have to zealously represent their client's best interests. Since they are not currently under suit from Ian Gold, it's safe to say they did not misrepresent any offers to either party.

What happened is what happened, its been reported in one manner since it occured two years ago. There's never been a dispute over what happened, nobody has ever claimed the events transpired contrary to Ian Gold.

Since the agents did not misrepresent (Fact). Since Ian Gold slandered the Broncos organization, specifically Shanahan lying (Fact). And since the Broncos rushed to resign him at a contract similar to what the Postons asked for (Fact). And since nobody has ever disputed Ian Gold's version of the events told on television, in local media, AND in interviews on this website (specifially, shortly after the injury when Gold stated Shanahan personally told him the injury would not effect contract negotiations, on this site) (Fact).

That all adds up to one conclusion. 1+1+1.....

Your argument is sound IF the Poston's could misrepresent and lie. They can't. They HAVE to report every single word to Ian Gold, usually the negotiations are taped by both parties as well. So, lets assume Ian Gold is telling the truth and the Poston's committed no crimes. What then?

Javalon
10-31-2005, 12:07 PM
Heh, here we go again.

I never called Gold a liar. I said lying was one of three possibilities. The most likely of which is that Gold misinterpreted the conversation he had with Shanny or had different ideas of what kind of contract he was going to get. Unless you know the actual words that were spoken and their context, then you have no basis for claiming to know how events transpired. And that's the whole point. You claim to know what happened but have supplied no evidence that is more than circumstantial.

Also, I have never said that your concept of what happened can't be true. I have simply held out that until I've seen something reliable to convince me of your view, I'll keep an open mind as to what really transpired. And I have seen nothing to sway me to your way of thinking on this matter.

Your aim is to prove me wrong on this matter. But I do not have an opinion as to exactly what happened. I do not know. I simply believe you are misrepresenting as "fact" events that might not have happened the way you believe. That has been my whole gripe about the entire situation.


Javalon and I are arguing over whether Shanahan lied to Ian Gold about his knee not being a factor in the upcoming negotiations (this is indisputable, he did), but moreso, we are arguing about whether the Broncos and Ian Gold agreed in principle to a one year contract the day of the draft, only to have the Broncos renege when Mark Clayton was drafted, and they panicked and took DJ Williams, who was their highest rated player on the board, which shocked and angered Ian Gold because contract parameters had been reached due to all night negotiating ending several hours before the draft. (This is the Ian Gold view, the Broncos organization has never commented other then to admit to the negotiations going up until the draft).
Again, I have never said it impossible. Simply that you have not provided anything substantial as to exactly what was said between Gold and Shanahan. And unless someone recorded the conversation or Shanahan confirms it, I doubt you can do so.

Gold said Shanahan wouldn't use the injury against him. And that's probably true. But how exactly that was phrased could be a big difference.

"Ian, don't worry about your injury because we'll still offer you a nice contract and do our best to keep you in Denver." That's one possibility that Gold could have then reported as Shanahan saying the injury wouldn't be an issue when it came to his contract. But you can obviously see how that wouldn't have been a promise of paying Gold what he and the Postons thought he was worth.

Thus the second possibility of miscommunication is, in my estimation, the most likely cause for all this hoopla. I prefer to not believe that either Shanahan or Gold lied about any of this. It was likely a miscommunication but your bias toward Gold and against Shanny has jaded your perspective.


(This is the Ian Gold view, the Broncos organization has never commented other then to admit to the negotiations going up until the draft).
Not entirely true. You have even posted links to a Denver Post article that stated the following:
The story of when and how those last-minute negotiations collapsed depends on whom you ask.

According to Broncos general manager Ted Sundquist, coach Mike Shanahan attempted to make one last-ditch effort to re-sign Gold.

"Mike went home Friday night and thought about the situation," Sundquist said Wednesday. "He came back Saturday morning before the draft and asked us to crunch some numbers and see if we could work it out and make it fit. Then we talked with Ian and his agent, Carl Poston. But what we offered wasn't in line with what they were talking about."

When negotiations with Gold collapsed, Denver drafted Miami linebacker D.J. Williams with the 17th pick of the first round.
...
Sundquist said talks were over hours before Denver drafted Williams.

"We were done talking in the morning before the first pick in the draft," Sundquist said.
Gold said he had hopes of remaining a Bronco up until about 20 minutes before the team selected Williams. Once again there is apparently a miscommunication. You choose to believe Gold because you are a fan of his. I see contradictory information and believe it could have gone either way or somewhere in between.


It just agitates me because this is what happened. And the rebuttal that "Ian Gold is a liar" is just sad.
Again, I never said that. This seems to just be your defensive interpretation. (Possibly with the intent to put me on the defensive?)


That's all Javalon and I are arguing over. I've given Ian Gold's views of the event straight from his mouth, I've given tons of circumstantial evidence which increases the reliability of Gold's comments. Javalon's given nothing but "Ian Gold is lying". No quotes from the organization on the matter, no quotes from Shanahan on the matter, absolutely zero circumstantial evidence (because it all supports Ian Gold) on the matter. I mean...come on. We've argued for two years and I know its hard to back down after all that time...but come on...
Just because you interpret your circumstantial evidence (and that's being charitable) one way does not mean everybody is going to agree with you. You're going to law school, do they teach you that every jury is going to rule in your favor all the time? I simply have not been convinced by your so-called evidence and I'm not sure anybody else has, either. (Assuming anybody else even cares now. ;))

The other part of this is your claim that the Broncos and Gold had an oral agreement on draft day to a one year contract and that the Broncos reneged. I have never claimed you are wrong about that; rather I have simply asked for proof.

Gold said something along the lines of "I never completely shut the
door" and you seem to have interpreted that into specifics that I had not seen documented. All I asked is that you provide something more than your interpretation of what happened. The best I have seen is an article stating that how things transpired "depends on who you ask" and even that did not state explicitly that an oral agreement was made and broken.

Hell, you hear all the time about how deals are agreed to "in principle" but the details couldn't be worked out. That isn't reneging, that's simply a lack of closure. As to the one-year deal issue, I simply had not heard mention of that and wanted a link so I could read the details for myself and not rely on third-hand accounts of the matter.

You choose to take it as a personal slight that I don't take your word for everything you say. You don't like that I choose to want to form my own opinions and not simply accept your deductions. All I can say is that this is the internet and I don't know you from Adam. I apologize for needing more to go on than your posts.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-31-2005, 12:55 PM
I feel like I'm arguing with you that the world is round and you believe its flat. That's how I feel. There's nothing I can do to help you, believe what you wish.

In the mind of anyone who steps back and looks at the situation in its entirety, the comments of Ian Gold, the manner in which the organization acted despite those comments, the pure size of the contract....it should be blatantly obvious Ian Gold's perception of the events that transpired is correct.

I'm talking Watershed clear.

Javalon
10-31-2005, 04:15 PM
I feel like I'm arguing with you that the world is round and you believe its flat. That's how I feel. There's nothing I can do to help you, believe what you wish.

In the mind of anyone who steps back and looks at the situation in its entirety, the comments of Ian Gold, the manner in which the organization acted despite those comments, the pure size of the contract....it should be blatantly obvious Ian Gold's perception of the events that transpired is correct.

I'm talking Watershed clear.
Really? Well, I have stepped back and looked at the situation in its entirety, as much as is possible given the (lack of) information, and I do not agree with your conclusions. But apparently because I do not necessarily agree with your assessment, my opinion doesn't matter.

If anybody else here has come to Mat'hir's conclusions based on the provided information, please let me know.

As I've said, your version is certainly possible but there are a lot of other possibilities. You simply have provided inadequate information for me to agree with your view and disregard other possibilities.

Moving on... Great game yesterday, eh? :beer:

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-31-2005, 06:38 PM
Really? Well, I have stepped back and looked at the situation in its entirety, as much as is possible given the (lack of) information, and I do not agree with your conclusions. But apparently because I do not necessarily agree with your assessment, my opinion doesn't matter.

If anybody else here has come to Mat'hir's conclusions based on the provided information, please let me know.

As I've said, your version is certainly possible but there are a lot of other possibilities. You simply have provided inadequate information for me to agree with your view and disregard other possibilities.

Moving on... Great game yesterday, eh? :beer:


It's not "my" version, its the press's version and Ian Gold's version. It's the version the Broncos have never tried to dispute.

Let me ask you one question Javalon. One question.

Ian Gold publically slandered the Broncos for reneging on his deal and on lying about his knee injury not being a factor. If he was lying and was disgruntled, WHY IN THE HELL would the organization immediately rush out to resign him despite just drafting his replacement in the 1st round, despite those comments, AND paying him a massive contract with 13 million in guaranteed bonuses?????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

Please give me your logic.

Javalon
10-31-2005, 08:37 PM
It's not "my" version, its the press's version and Ian Gold's version. It's the version the Broncos have never tried to dispute.

Let me ask you one question Javalon. One question.

Ian Gold publically slandered the Broncos for reneging on his deal and on lying about his knee injury not being a factor. If he was lying and was disgruntled, WHY IN THE HELL would the organization immediately rush out to resign him despite just drafting his replacement in the 1st round, despite those comments, AND paying him a massive contract with 13 million in guaranteed bonuses?????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

Please give me your logic.
It goes both ways. If Gold was so pissed at the Broncos why did he re-sign with us? If he thought he was lied to and abused, why come back to the exact same people that treated him that way?

I still have not seen where Gold claimed the Broncos reneged on a deal. It seemed to me that he was simply upset because he believed Shanny was offering him less of a contract (mainly bonus money) than he was worth due to the injury when he believed it wouldn't be a factor.

And whether Gold unjustly slandered the Broncos or Shanahan reneged on a deal with Gold, perhaps they were actually grown men who knew they were good for each other and they worked out their differences like adults (after the Postons were gone and no longer causing trouble). Perhaps there was originally a miscommunication, as I have repeatedly suggested, and Shanahan and Gold cleared the air.

That sounds more plausible to me than Gold returning to the people that treated him as bad, and at whom he was as angry with, as you profess.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
10-31-2005, 11:02 PM
It goes both ways. If Gold was so pissed at the Broncos why did he re-sign with us? If he thought he was lied to and abused, why come back to the exact same people that treated him that way?

I still have not seen where Gold claimed the Broncos reneged on a deal. It seemed to me that he was simply upset because he believed Shanny was offering him less of a contract (mainly bonus money) than he was worth due to the injury when he believed it wouldn't be a factor.

And whether Gold unjustly slandered the Broncos or Shanahan reneged on a deal with Gold, perhaps they were actually grown men who knew they were good for each other and they worked out their differences like adults (after the Postons were gone and no longer causing trouble). Perhaps there was originally a miscommunication, as I have repeatedly suggested, and Shanahan and Gold cleared the air.

That sounds more plausible to me than Gold returning to the people that treated him as bad, and at whom he was as angry with, as you profess.


Gold said why he came back. He liked the area, he felt it was home, and the Broncos gave him his guaranteed money.

And I agree with you, the Broncos and Gold did clear the air. The Broncos did so by admitting they were wrong and apologized, if not by words, then by the contract offer. Ian Gold received the contract he and the Postons asked for the year prior, well 13 million in bonuses instead of 15 million. Ian Gold was given the position he wanted to play and DJ Williams was bumped to SAM.

I see a big fat apology in that. And I'm sure Gold apologized for his public comments as well, though he did rediscuss the situation repeating the story once again after signing his new contract.

Football is a business, he came back because he was paid his demands. If it was a pissing contest, the Broncos ran out of juice first.

Javalon
10-31-2005, 11:43 PM
Gold said why he came back. He liked the area, he felt it was home, and the Broncos gave him his guaranteed money.

And I agree with you, the Broncos and Gold did clear the air. The Broncos did so by admitting they were wrong and apologized, if not by words, then by the contract offer. Ian Gold received the contract he and the Postons asked for the year prior, well 13 million in bonuses instead of 15 million. Ian Gold was given the position he wanted to play and DJ Williams was bumped to SAM.

I see a big fat apology in that. And I'm sure Gold apologized for his public comments as well, though he did rediscuss the situation repeating the story once again after signing his new contract.

Football is a business, he came back because he was paid his demands. If it was a pissing contest, the Broncos ran out of juice first.
Sure, it's business. But once again you are being one-sided. If you think Gold can view football as a business and overcome his bad feelings toward the Broncos, why couldn't the reverse be true and the Broncos overcame their bad feelings toward Gold because it's a business and they wanted his skills? There is no proof in these events, just your interpretation of the events.

Also, according to the Rocky Mountain News, the Postons were seeking more in guaranteed money than you mention.

Gold visited Detroit on Thursday, and he could fill the void on the Lions defense created by the departure of weak-side linebacker Barrett Green to the New York Giants.

Should the Lions lure Gold, it would be a homecoming for the four-year pro. He was born in Ann Arbor, Mich., and attended the University of Michigan. He also would be playing under another Michigan man.

"He is athletic, experienced and tough," said Lions coach Steve Mariucci, an Iron Mountain, Mich., native. "He's played, and he's played well. All of those things. He's got a chance to stay on the field in all of your packages."

It's been the financial package that has dogged Gold in free agency, combined with a torn knee ligament suffered last season, and stifled interest.

According to several agents, Gold's representative, Carl Poston, reportedly sought $25 million in guaranteed money, including a $15 million signing bonus once the linebacker hit the open market. Atlanta is believed to be the only other official visit made by Gold this month. The Falcons remain interested but reportedly have balked at paying $4 million a season for Gold's services.

Poston and Denver general manager Ted Sundquist have not returned repeated phone messages, while Gold has declined comment.
Not that I care about this point but since you brought it up, Gold got only an $8.5 million signing bonus compared to the $15 million the Postons wanted and only $13 million in guaranteed money (although I haven't seen that exact figure) compared to the $25 million in guaranteed money the Postons were seeking. Please compare apples to apples and not try to manipulate the data to support your points.

Whatever. This quibbling is getting boring. You believe your version of things and I'll settle for the fact that I'll probably never know the real story. In the end, none of this matters.

Gold is now happy. The Broncos are now happy. The Broncos are winning and that makes me happy. :D Hopefully that makes you happy too because you often seem happier when you have something to ***** about with regards to the Broncos.

Feel free to have the last word because I'm outta here.

TXBRONC
11-01-2005, 08:13 AM
Really? Well, I have stepped back and looked at the situation in its entirety, as much as is possible given the (lack of) information, and I do not agree with your conclusions. But apparently because I do not necessarily agree with your assessment, my opinion doesn't matter.

If anybody else here has come to Mat'hir's conclusions based on the provided information, please let me know.

As I've said, your version is certainly possible but there are a lot of other possibilities. You simply have provided inadequate information for me to agree with your view and disregard other possibilities.

Moving on... Great game yesterday, eh? :beer:


I have never seen any thing that supports the postion that Gold was that upset with Broncos. If he was why the hell come back regardless of money. I have yet to see one shred of actual evidence that shows that Shanahan and the Broncos reneged on any deal with Gold. Of coarse NONE of us will ever know for sure what happened and quite frankly I don't care. The Broncos brought Gold back the defense is better for it and we're winning THAT'S what matters to me.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
11-01-2005, 12:14 PM
I have never seen any thing that supports the postion that Gold was that upset with Broncos. If he was why the hell come back regardless of money. I have yet to see one shred of actual evidence that shows that Shanahan and the Broncos reneged on any deal with Gold. Of coarse NONE of us will ever know for sure what happened and quite frankly I don't care. The Broncos brought Gold back the defense is better for it and we're winning THAT'S what matters to me.


No F'N evidence??? That Gold was mad??? LMAO! You guys are just...wow.

Here, you go, once again, the same "Evidence" I gave you back in March (I am simply copying and pasting)



http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0...2772387,00.html


"Things were said in those negotiations and I felt they were trying to compensate me in a way fair to them and not to me," Gold said. "They saw an opportunity to get me cheap. I saw it as a slap in the face. I kind of acted on emotion.


"I saw the offer sheet and said this is the way they want to play? I'm out."

Do ya think he was mad TX? Do ya think theres some proof? JEE-ZUS!

Gold was returning from a 2003 knee injury. A player who relies on speed can be considered suspect after such an injury. The Broncos would push their signing bonus offer to $5.5 million. Gold's agent, Carl Poston, insisted on $15 million - Ray Lewis-type money. The Broncos bucked.


http://sports.mcall.com/default.asp.../ABN3191996.htm




The front office talked with Gold during the draft. He wouldn't reveal what was said, but the addition of Williams and the demands of Gold coming off of a serious knee injury point to his days in Denver being done.


He revealed what was said on The Best Damn Sports Show a month later. The Broncos had orally agreed to the parameters of a one year deal giving Gold the opportunity to show his knee was fine and obtain a big contract next offseason. The next thing Gold knew, the Broncos drafted DJ Williams and pulled the one year deal. Gold said f*ck it, I'm not signing for a 5 million bonus and took it personal because Shanahan had said he would not exploit the knee injury in the negotiations.


http://broncos.gazette.com/fullstory.php?id=2462




Gold tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee last Oct. 12 and missed the remainder of the season. He said shortly after suffering the injury that he had a conversation with Broncos coach Mike Shanahan and he told Gold and his agent he wanted to re-sign Gold and that his injury wouldn't have an effect on negotiations.


I'm a very literal person so when someone gives me their word literally, I take it for what it is, Gold said. It's unfortunate he didn't really follow through, and they weren't willing to make that commitment.

More evidence of SHanahan's promise from this very site:

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.p...609&videoID=103



The Denver Broncos drafted a linebacker in the first round of Saturday's NFL draft, but Ian Gold said they almost re-signed him Saturday before that happened.

For reasons Gold wouldn't discuss, he said the deal with the Broncos fell through shortly before the team picked Miami linebacker D.J. Williams as Gold's replacement. Gold signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Wednesday.

I thought I had a deal done (with Denver), said Gold in a teleconference. Denver just showed me they weren't willing to make that commitment.


By Giving him an 8.5 million signing bonus and a long term deal, I think that shows management did try to exploit his injury last season with the pultry 5.5 million bonus offered. The sides met in the middle for the most part. I have a hard time believing the Poston's truly expected a 15 million bonus and were just using that to get the offer up to around a 10 million bonus.

I think it's also extremely crystal clear that the two sides had a one year deal worked out that was pulled off the table when Williams was drafted. I don't really have a problem with that aspect of it. The only issue I've ever had was that we were trying to exploit his knee injury and lock him up long term for cheap, and not give him a one year deal to show he was healed and then pay him big dollars or not based on that. However, that's basically what we ended up doing. We just let Gold prove his one year deal in Tampa. No matter how you slice it, it still was in "bad taste" to treat a player like that after giving him your word you would not. Especially a star player who unselfishly continued to play special teams and suffered his injury doing so.


But it's over now, he's back. We spent a first round pick on Williams to be a SLB. Which is never done. Hopefully it's going to pan out so watching the success of Wilfork, Smith, and Udeze won't be too depressing.



Ok, lets see you fellas give it the ol' spin once again.

TXBRONC
11-01-2005, 06:42 PM
No F'N evidence??? That Gold was mad??? LMAO! You guys are just...wow.

Here, you go, once again, the same "Evidence" I gave you back in March (I am simply copying and pasting)



http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0...2772387,00.html





Do ya think he was mad TX? Do ya think theres some proof? JEE-ZUS!

Gold was returning from a 2003 knee injury. A player who relies on speed can be considered suspect after such an injury. The Broncos would push their signing bonus offer to $5.5 million. Gold's agent, Carl Poston, insisted on $15 million - Ray Lewis-type money. The Broncos bucked.


http://sports.mcall.com/default.asp.../ABN3191996.htm





He revealed what was said on The Best Damn Sports Show a month later. The Broncos had orally agreed to the parameters of a one year deal giving Gold the opportunity to show his knee was fine and obtain a big contract next offseason. The next thing Gold knew, the Broncos drafted DJ Williams and pulled the one year deal. Gold said f*ck it, I'm not signing for a 5 million bonus and took it personal because Shanahan had said he would not exploit the knee injury in the negotiations.


http://broncos.gazette.com/fullstory.php?id=2462






More evidence of SHanahan's promise from this very site:

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.p...609&videoID=103





By Giving him an 8.5 million signing bonus and a long term deal, I think that shows management did try to exploit his injury last season with the pultry 5.5 million bonus offered. The sides met in the middle for the most part. I have a hard time believing the Poston's truly expected a 15 million bonus and were just using that to get the offer up to around a 10 million bonus.

I think it's also extremely crystal clear that the two sides had a one year deal worked out that was pulled off the table when Williams was drafted. I don't really have a problem with that aspect of it. The only issue I've ever had was that we were trying to exploit his knee injury and lock him up long term for cheap, and not give him a one year deal to show he was healed and then pay him big dollars or not based on that. However, that's basically what we ended up doing. We just let Gold prove his one year deal in Tampa. No matter how you slice it, it still was in "bad taste" to treat a player like that after giving him your word you would not. Especially a star player who unselfishly continued to play special teams and suffered his injury doing so.


But it's over now, he's back. We spent a first round pick on Williams to be a SLB. Which is never done. Hopefully it's going to pan out so watching the success of Wilfork, Smith, and Udeze won't be too depressing.



Ok, lets see you fellas give it the ol' spin once again.

I wasn't going to respond to your post but on further consideration I will but then I too am done with this.

First off, I didn't say Gold wasn't angry, I said he must not have been as angry as you say. Proof of that is he's back in Denver. Even if you're right it looks to me that Shanahan and Gold were able work things out.

Now looking at the pasted quotes they all have one thing in common, they only come from Gold's views and your interpretation of them. There isn't one quote that tells me the organization's side of this issue. More than likely we'll never know and in any case its a moot point because again Gold in back in Broncos uniform.

If I were running a team and had to salary cap to consider I try lock a very good player long term at best price I could get. It's well known fact that's how Mike likes to work. Considering what I have read about the those two bastards ie the Postons I don't have a hard time believing they had more to do with Gold leaving than anything else. What did Ian do at the end of last season? He fired their sorry asses which leads me to believe that Gold finally saw the light about those two jerks. If memory serves me correctly it was Gold who first contacted Shanahan not the other way around. For someone felt so betrayed that seems very strange to me.

Finally, you keep saying the Broncos took a number one pick to play SLB. That is simply not true. DJ was drafted to play WLB and did in fact play that position his rookie season. The circumstanced have changed since then, no one could have predicted that we would have Gold back in the fold this year. Someone was going to have to move DJ was the best choice. That still doesn't take way from the fact DJ was drafted to play WLB.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
11-01-2005, 07:46 PM
I wasn't going to respond to your post but on further consideration I will but then I too am done with this.

First off, I didn't say Gold wasn't angry, I said he must not have been as angry as you say. Proof of that is he's back in Denver. Even if you're right it looks to me that Shanahan and Gold were able work things out.

Now looking at the pasted quotes they all have one thing in common, they only come from Gold's views and your interpretation of them. There isn't one quote that tells me the organization's side of this issue. More than likely we'll never know and in any case its a moot point because again Gold in back in Broncos uniform.

If I were running a team and had to salary cap to consider I try lock a very good player long term at best price I could get. It's well known fact that's how Mike likes to work. Considering what I have read about the those two bastards ie the Postons I don't have a hard time believing they had more to do with Gold leaving than anything else. What did Ian do at the end of last season? He fired their sorry asses which leads me to believe that Gold finally saw the light about those two jerks. If memory serves me correctly it was Gold who first contacted Shanahan not the other way around. For someone felt so betrayed that seems very strange to me.

Finally, you keep saying the Broncos took a number one pick to play SLB. That is simply not true. DJ was drafted to play WLB and did in fact play that position his rookie season. The circumstanced have changed since then, no one could have predicted that we would have Gold back in the fold this year. Someone was going to have to move DJ was the best choice. That still doesn't take way from the fact DJ was drafted to play WLB.


You know what, you make valid points.

I'm to the point now that I no longer have a clear picture of exactly what you, Javalon, and I are arguing about. Because we are agreeing most of the time.

Obviously, the big disagreement is that I believe Ian Gold's interpretation of the situation due to the supporting factors, and you and Javalon think Ian Gold is "mistaken".

Ok, obviously, after two years, nothing short of Shanahan doing a video interview and candidly stating Ian Gold is right, will sway your judgments. I accept that. Because its going to take Shanahan doing a video interview stating Ian Gold is wrong before I believe he's lying.

This is in regards to the contract negotiations the day of the draft and the alledged reneging by the Broncos.


It is absolutely indisputable that Shanahan told Ian Gold his knee would not be an issue. And it was. That happened for certain. So we can't be arguing about that.


As for DJ Williams, drafted to play WLB, MLB, SLB, at this point it doesnt matter. He's on pace for 40 tackles, no sacks or INTs, and sits on the bench in nickel formations. He was a waste of a 1st round pick any way you slice it based on his performance this season and Coyer's criticism of him at WLB last season. This is still arguable, but it looks STRONGLY like possible All Pros Vince Wilfork and Will Smith would have been the better selections.


But I'll agree to disagree (again) until next year when you, Javalon, and I argue the same thing one more time.