PDA

View Full Version : Broncos are trying to trade Gerard Warren this week (Merged)



The Dyna$ty
08-13-2007, 12:39 AM
Broncos trying to deal Warren
By Mike Klis and Bill Williamson
Denver Post Staff Writers
Article Last Updated: 08/12/2007 11:56:59 PM MDT

San Francisco - Broncos defensive tackle Gerard Warren did not make the trip to San Francisco on Sunday as the team attempts to trade him.

Two NFL sources confirmed Warren, who started the past two seasons for the Broncos, is on the trading block. The Broncos would pick up part of his salary, which was trimmed during the offseason. Warren, who had 51 tackles and 2 1/2 sacks last season, became expendable because he is not considered a good fit for Jim Bates' system where tackles are to primarily leverage their position and hold the point. Warren is a tackle who can penetrate the backfield.

Should Warren be traded, Jimmy Kennedy would start alongside Sam Adams at defensive tackle. Veteran Alvin McKinley and rookie Marcus Thomas would also move up the depth chart.

Warren has been bothered by a turf toe injury that hindered him last season. However, sources confirmed health was not the reason he did not make the trip.

He likely will be traded within the week for a future draft pick.

Miami and Indianapolis are among the teams who are in need of a proven defensive tackle.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.

Javalon
08-13-2007, 12:48 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.

Whoa, this might not be a shock to you but it is to me. He might have taken a paycut but his bonus money will still accelerate when we cut him and smack us for this year and next. That sucks.

While I hadn't heard much about him during camp, good or bad, I didn't think much about it. I had pretty much assumed his being our starter was a given and had no idea the Broncos weren't happy with him or vice versa. I know Warren had expressed in the past that he doesn't like to be a space-eater but hadn't heard a peep out of him this year.

Thanks for the report!


-EDIT- I guess it's no longer good to be a Brownco now that Bates is here...

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 12:56 AM
Whoa, this might not be a shock to you but it is to me. He might have taken a paycut but his bonus money will still accelerate when we cut him and smack us for this year and next. That sucks.

While I hadn't heard much about him during camp, good or bad, I didn't think much about it. I had pretty much assumed his being our starter was a given and had no idea the Broncos weren't happy with him or vice versa. I know Warren had expressed in the past that he doesn't like to be a space-eater but hadn't heard a peep out of him this year.

Thanks for the report!


-EDIT- I guess it's no longer good to be a Brownco now that Bates is here...Im shocked by this to Jav i didnt see this coming.I thought we had 2 big tackles up the middle to start the season,Wow!


His salary has to be a factor!


Those Brownies is falling slowly one by one.

ChampWJ
08-13-2007, 01:29 AM
Anyone else think it's odd that we might send him to Indy? Seems stupid to weaken our team while helping the Super Bowl Champs restrengthen their defense. :confused:

NinjaPirateFunk
08-13-2007, 01:42 AM
Anyone else think it's odd that we might send him to Indy? Seems stupid to weaken our team while helping the Super Bowl Champs restrengthen their defense. :confused:

that defense is going to be crappy anyway. i don't think we're helping them.

if they take him, it's just a lame attempt to put a bandaid over a chainsaw wound. someone will be calling for the gms head if he doesn't at least try to grab someone like warren, so why not trade for warren? he won't help alot but it'll look like he's doing his job and he's the best player available to stop the run.

the colts might figure they draft really well and wouldn't need a 3rd to 5th round pick (depending on the details).

i didn't see this coming but when i really think about it, i'm slightly more in favor than i am opposed. while reading "jimmy kennedy would start" makes me shudder, i see marcus thomas and feel very comfortable, because once he irons out his rookie kinks, he'll be a force for us.

sam adams + marcus thomas = big trouble for everyone but us

silkamilkamonic
08-13-2007, 01:50 AM
You're just figuring this out now Denver?

Consdiering what that article says in why Denver wants to trade Warren and what the 4-3 is supopsed to do in Bates offense, I don't see alot of ability from Marcus Thomas also. He's more of a pass rusher then he is a DT that can hold his point of attack. Maybe next year Denver can draft 2 or so DT's.

Jason Allen is virtually out of the question, and is a first round talent who's playing out of position at Safety and is a natural CB, and should be playing CB.

AussieBronco9
08-13-2007, 02:38 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.

Do you have any idea what this will mean for Denver's cap situation? Would it be worth retaining him to save a possible cap hit?

columbiaskinny
08-13-2007, 03:36 AM
Interesting.

Positive out of this is someone stepped up and made Warren expendable.

Morambar
08-13-2007, 03:42 AM
I'd be lying if I said this didn't shock me. Perhaps it really is as simple as Kennedy being the new Warren as a better long term investment, since they do seem similar players (though that may simply mean the same issues arise with Kennedy in a few years; there's a reason the first round pick's no longer in Seattle.... ) However, it does also seem that we only have one guy who truly fits the mold of the Bates DT: Sam Adams, who's unlikely to play more than a year, or maybe two. Then we have a big disgruntled space eater who wants to be an UT; he's just named Kennedy instead of Warren. To that we add a couple smaller finesse players in McKinley and Thomas, but where are the immovable objects in the middle once Adams retires? Sure hope we go after DTs and LBs early next year.... :sad:

Bigplayshay84
08-13-2007, 04:03 AM
This must mean Marcus Thomas is making great progress and this is why...

we all know sam adams isnt going to be playing every down on D....

Jimmy Kennedy must be good if we have him starting hmmm i know he is big though.....

Alvin McKinley is a guy i know nothing about really....but he is a vet so thats good.

The last guy left(obviously there are more) is Marcus.....He is in a position now where he will have to at the very least fill in for kennedy/adams....

so the coaches must be gaining trust in the backflippin fatso.

Bigplayshay84
08-13-2007, 04:09 AM
Check that i say we keep warren and change out scheme to a 5-2 with gold and williams at LB

put adams on nose, with warren/thomas on each side then moss/dumervil on the ends playing hybrid style LB/DE

then check this make champ a safety with only coverage responsibilities and a running safey valve....walk lynch up with fox and bly playing corner.

i have never seen defenses like this anywhere but in little league so i dunno if it will work in the NFL.

Q-niverse
08-13-2007, 04:09 AM
This is news to me yet not surprising. We have loads of talent on the D-line and I am sure they won't just cut them all. If I were other teams though, knowing the Broncos are going to be cutting probably 8-10 Dlinement, I'd just wait and not trade.

Spyder
08-13-2007, 04:27 AM
Bit of a shocker, but still not that surprising.

I'm sure his money has a little bit, or maybe a lot to do with it, but has someone else really stepped up? Or what exactly is the deal?

And as someone mentioned above.. I'm not sure anyone here besides Sam Adams fits the role of a space eating fatso and he's pushing 40.

I don't know, maybe they're just fed up with the guy and the money they're paying him. They could more than likely just be using the whole "he doesn't fit our defensive scheme" as an excuse to unload him. Because I'm sure no one else here really fits the huge hippo DT's Jim Bates prefers other than old man Sam Adams.

silkamilkamonic
08-13-2007, 04:38 AM
I don't know, maybe they're just fed up with the guy and the money they're paying him. They could more than likely just be using the whole "he doesn't fit our defensive scheme" as an excuse to unload him. Because I'm sure no one else here really fits the huge hippo DT's Jim Bates prefers other than old man Sam Adams.

It's a good point.

Thomas doesn't exactly fit the mold of a DT in Bates scheme and they seem to be high on him.

Orange_Crush21
08-13-2007, 04:38 AM
That's too bad, I like Gerard. I thought he oftentimes got a bum rap for his performance. Good luck to him wherever he ends up.

BroncFanIN
08-13-2007, 04:38 AM
The nice thing is, we can watch the D-line tonight and see how they do...then much of the speculation can be put to rest.

We'll see how the D-line performs in the first two series tonight.:cheers:

Are you ready for some football?!:rockon:

Orange_Crush21
08-13-2007, 04:40 AM
The nice thing is, we can watch the D-line tonight and see how they do...then much of the speculation can be put to rest.

We'll see how the D-line performs in the first two series tonight.:cheers:

Are you ready for some football?!:rockon:

No doubt, I'm ready for some football!

I'm really interested to see Jarvis Moss. I know he'll probably only play a few series, but still I want to see him get a sack... or two... and a forced fumble... and a TD...

Ok, maybe my expectations are too high...?

muse
08-13-2007, 04:51 AM
That's too bad, I like Gerard. I thought he oftentimes got a bum rap for his performance. Good luck to him wherever he ends up.

Same. But I guess if his toes are still not quite right then what to do, especially considering the depth we have.

Also I don't think he really likes being used as a clogger. I don't think he'd pull a Pryce but I guess he'd be more susceptible to taking plays off in that role. I trust Bates and Johnson to make the right calls though.

broncolee
08-13-2007, 05:32 AM
It's definitely a shock that they are trying to trade Warren. I'm not concerned about the salary cap hit. Obviously they wouldn't be shopping him around if it was going to put them over the limit. Although it may make it more likely that they trade him for a draft pick rather than another player. I would say that they shouldn't give him up for anything less than a third round pick but if they don't get that kind of offer they would be shooting themselves in the foot since they've seem to made it clear that they want to trade him rather than keep him. How would they get his best effort if he's playing for a team that he knows doesn't really want him? Perhaps they left him behind because they're close to finalizing a deal.

I seem to remember reading some positive comments about Amon Gordon recently. I wonder if he's part of the reason the Broncos feel comfortable with the idea of trading Warren. They must be satisfied with the depth they have at DT.

kmcgough25
08-13-2007, 06:08 AM
I've been out of it for a little while down here in Florida, but has Kennedy been playing that well?? Or does it look like he just fits the scheme better than Warren?

When we signed Kennedy, it appeared that is was just for depth at DT.

MilitantDBFan
08-13-2007, 06:38 AM
Im not heartbroken over it. As long as we get a solid pick (4th or 5th rd realistically, maybe a 3rd if conditional) or solid player (WR, OLB, S) then im straight.

We dont need big money along the defensive front, we just need big bodies. Yes Marcus Thomas has the same penetrating, if you can call it that, style as Warren but he is getting paid a hell of a lot less do it on 3rd down, and probably 3rd down exclusively.

I wish Warren the best of luck, he tried hard, but never seemed to want it enough. :salute:

TheSportsGuru
08-13-2007, 06:40 AM
It's interesting that we are looking to trade Warren in favor of Kennedy because J.K. fits the scheme better, while the reason J.K. fell out of favor in St. Louis is becuase he wanted to penetrate, not control gaps....

Interesting indeed.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 07:00 AM
We must have our eye on another player in next years draft and the organization wants to unload him because of his salary,and his injury.He makes to much money for the performance that puts out.I see this as another Al Wilson case his injury is not responding like he should be responding.


Good luck Big Money wherever you land :salute:

Hawgdriver
08-13-2007, 07:02 AM
-EDIT- I guess it's no longer good to be a Brownco now that Bates is here...

One wonders when Eazy-E's number will be called...

Let there be no doubt, this is clearly Bates' defense!!

DrewB
08-13-2007, 07:03 AM
IMO this has less to do with Warren and more to do with how good of a camp Antwon Burton is having...Hope Denver can get at least a 4th for him

At his point though Denver will most likely take what they can get...cause at this point looks like he is gonna get released

Hawgdriver
08-13-2007, 07:08 AM
sam adams + marcus thomas = big trouble for everyone but us[/B]

Snake, I share your optimism, mainly because of training camp reports about Kennedy and Adams. I think you're right, the D-Line's eventual dominance relies on Thomas making the transition to the pros and playing at a high level.

If you would have told me a year ago that we would have Sam Adams and Jimmy Kennedy as our DT starters, I wouldn't have considered it an upgrade...

This is a bold move, but I'm definitely in favor. I'm hoping for a fourth rounder.

ballen
08-13-2007, 07:13 AM
I don't mind as long as we don't send him to the Colts. Not only would we be helping a major competitor, but we should get a better pick from Miami.

underrated29
08-13-2007, 07:16 AM
i like gerrard and dont like this very much, imo we need to collapse the pocket. not get pressure from the outside. we got plenty last year and the qb just stepped up into the pocket and torched us.

and guru is right, kennedy wants to collapse the pocket, not eat space. this could be a bad turnout for us, unless we get something really good for him.

ie. 3rd, or starting player- id say at lb,oline(or wr just in case)

The Executioner
08-13-2007, 07:18 AM
:eek: Wow this is a total shock to me when I read it this morning on Denver Post. WOW!!!!!!!!!
He was a good teammate IMO, taking the paycut and I remembered last year Shanahan said he should be in the Pro Bowl. He is a good pass rusher for his weight, but man all the BrownCO experiment failed. Only Lang left, am I right? :eek: Bates is cleaning up the house.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 07:27 AM
Its better to get something for him now before he gets waived ;)

mxbronco13
08-13-2007, 07:39 AM
:eek: Wow this is a total shock to me when I read it this morning on Denver Post. WOW!!!!!!!!!
He was a good teammate IMO, taking the paycut and I remembered last year Shanahan said he should be in the Pro Bowl. He is a good pass rusher for his weight, but man all the BrownCO experiment failed. Only Lang left, am I right? :eek: Bates is cleaning up the house.

We have still got Ekuban and McKinley too! 3 Browncos left :cheers:

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 07:44 AM
This is shocking. I'm guessing that the SLB situation and need of that position is forcing us to trade him away and get something....either a player, or some cap relief to sign a player. Warren was our best DT last year, so this really came out of left field for me. I hadn't heard anything negative about him this OS or during TC....so I find this puzzling.

I guess that means that the young DTs are showing ENOUGH to feel comfortable to trade Warren away. Thats a good sign as well.

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 07:45 AM
also.. did the Brownco experiment fail??? :confused:

Because I could have SWORN we went to the AFC Championship game the year we picked up the Brown's players.

mxbronco13
08-13-2007, 07:49 AM
It would be funny if we traded for or signed an O-Tackle

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 07:50 AM
It would be funny if we traded for or signed an O-Tackle

why would that be funny?

mxbronco13
08-13-2007, 07:55 AM
why would that be funny?

actually i dont know :eek:

i dont know why i said that either hahaha

maybe shocking? :D

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 07:55 AM
This is shocking. I'm guessing that the SLB situation and need of that position is forcing us to trade him away and get something....either a player, or some cap relief to sign a player. Warren was our best DT last year, so this really came out of left field for me. I hadn't heard anything negative about him this OS or during TC....so I find this puzzling.

I guess that means that the young DTs are showing ENOUGH to feel comfortable to trade Warren away. Thats a good sign as well.I agree with you Rav, IMO with Sam Brandan being out we might need more depth at safety too.We have a lot of depth at the DT position this season.All the players thats in camp are as effective as Warren.


That turf toe injury really takes time to heal look at how long it took Deion Sanders toe to heal he was out with the Dallas a long time and retired.


Also,Warren weighs over 300+ pounds and he puts a lot of pressure on that toe.I hope we can get something for him.

lex
08-13-2007, 07:56 AM
Wow, theres a million theories for why we're doing this.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 08:14 AM
Wow, theres a million theories for why we're doing this.Yessir,Whats your opinion Lex :D

Exxon
08-13-2007, 08:15 AM
On 950 The Fan today they were speculating and hinting at rumors in the organization pointed to a trade to the NYG for Micheal Strahan. Warren and a supplemental for Strahan? Certainly matches up salary wise.

I figure they think Warren is expendable not so much for the space eating aspect, which a dt will be requested to do in bates scheme, but that isnt to say there is no UT whatsoever in Bates scheme.

Kennedy can do what Warren can, at least that appears to be the coaches thinking.

MilitantDBFan
08-13-2007, 08:23 AM
Michael Strahan

Marty Booker

both the dolphins and the giants could use a DT at this point. Hopefully something happens soon and we get a new weapon or draft pick.

Lorcust
08-13-2007, 08:24 AM
Michael Strahan

Marty Booker

both the dolphins and the giants could use a DT at this point. Hopefully something happens soon and we get a new weapon or draft pick.

I'd rather have a crippled Rod Smith than Marty Booker at this point in his career.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 08:31 AM
A trade for Strahan excites the hell out of me :rockon:

lex
08-13-2007, 08:35 AM
Yessir,Whats your opinion Lex :D

His salary, for what is probably marginal production (since he is no longer playing to his strength), probably is driving this. I have no idea if it means they are excited about someone in particular or who it would be though.

socalorado1
08-13-2007, 08:38 AM
I'd rather have a crippled Rod Smith than Marty Booker at this point in his career.

Apparently on Siruis Radio theres a guy by the name of Adam Schein? he says that the Broncos are also in talks about trading for WR Justin McCareins
as well for Ekuban or Engleberger.
Link from the Mane.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=59397

underrated29
08-13-2007, 09:10 AM
justin mccarins? i know the name, but cant put it anywhwere, who is he?

i hate mondays. and to be sure i got that right they want to trade neezey and engel for justin?

underrated29
08-13-2007, 09:21 AM
i'm not registered with the mane. so i cant view it.

aside from jsutin though, i think that warren for strahan (if he returns) would be a nice trade for us.

aaronheeb
08-13-2007, 09:21 AM
On 950 The Fan today they were speculating and hinting at rumors in the organization pointed to a trade to the NYG for Micheal Strahan. Warren and a supplemental for Strahan? Certainly matches up salary wise.

I figure they think Warren is expendable not so much for the space eating aspect, which a dt will be requested to do in bates scheme, but that isnt to say there is no UT whatsoever in Bates scheme.

Kennedy can do what Warren can, at least that appears to be the coaches thinking.


I was listening to this as well today and Mojer said that there are three teams who are apparently interested in Strahan. Us, Tennessee and Tampa Bay. This kind of surprised me because Strahan wants to get paid and whatever teams picks up his services is going to have to pay the man... And my feeling is that it is going to be more than Warren money. I wouldnt mind seeing him playing for us... But i really think there is way more to this Warren deal then we know...

Also, because this is out in the public and Warren did not make the trip to SF, I think this deal is as good as done and should be finished in the next 48 hours...

TheWookieeBronco
08-13-2007, 09:32 AM
This is a shock but I can see the reasons behind this. Before I make a longer post I want to know what people think his trade value would be?

WABronco
08-13-2007, 09:35 AM
I don't think Warren is a guy that we can't live without. I'd rather keep him, but if the FO likes their new depth I see no reason to worry over trading a guy like Warren.

As far as Marcus Thomas is concerned, he's big and beastly enough to basically do whatever he wants, IMO. He will be a straight-up wrecking ball.

Javalon
08-13-2007, 09:47 AM
I hate when news like this leaks out before a trade actually happens. It seems like it lowers the player's trade value when the world suddenly knows you're trying to get rid of him. And then if the trade doesn't happen you've got a player who knows you don't want him, assuming you don't end up cutting him and getting nothing in return.

Who spills the beans in situations like this?

socalorado1
08-13-2007, 09:54 AM
I don't think Warren is a guy that we can't live without. I'd rather keep him, but if the FO likes their new depth I see no reason to worry over trading a guy like Warren.

As far as Marcus Thomas is concerned, he's big and beastly enough to basically do whatever he wants, IMO. He will be a straight-up wrecking ball.

I agree. I also think that the best thing for a guy like Thomas in the situation hes in, is to play!! Put him in, and let him start wrecking things. This guy is the real deal IMHO, and keeping him on the bench is just a waste of his talent. Yeah, he raw, but i think playing will sharpen him quicker into the powerhouse he should be.

TXBRONC
08-13-2007, 09:55 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.

This is interesting, because I've been under the impression that Thomas was in the same mold as Warren.

Max Power
08-13-2007, 09:57 AM
This news surprised me. I never was a big fan of Warren, but even with him on the roster I don't like our DT depth that much. Maybe we can get another underachieving DT in return for him, somebody like Travis Johnson from the Texans maybe?

In terms of draft pick value, Warren is probably worth a 4th, no more no less.

I like the idea of Justin McCareins he seems like he could be a good slot receiver and would be good depth to have.

I don't like the idea of Strahan, even if he comes back he is likely only a 1-year rental and he would take away reps from our young DEs. I don't think he is that good anymore anyway.

WCOfan
08-13-2007, 09:57 AM
I also believe since he didn't make the trip to SF the deal is basically done already...

theshiverman
08-13-2007, 09:57 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.


The Colts need a DT real bad, but there is no way i would help the defending champs out by sending them Warren, id deal with Miami or send him to the NFC.

CinnaMunMun
08-13-2007, 09:58 AM
This news surprised me. I never was a big fan of Warren, but even with him on the roster I don't like our DT depth that much. Maybe we can get another underachieving DT in return for him, somebody like Travis Johnson from the Texans maybe?

In terms of draft pick value, Warren is probably worth a 4th, no more no less.

I like the idea of Justin McCareins he seems like he could be a good slot receiver and would be good depth to have.

I don't like the idea of Strahan, even if he comes back he is likely only a 1-year rental and he would take away reps from our young DEs.

I didn't have anything to add to this thread, but I had to say:

That is the most awesome user name EVER :laugh:

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 10:00 AM
I hate when news like this leaks out before a trade actually happens. It seems like it lowers the player's trade value when the world suddenly knows you're trying to get rid of him. And then if the trade doesn't happen you've got a player who knows you don't want him, assuming you don't end up cutting him and getting nothing in return.

Who spills the beans in situations like this?

Personally... I think if Shanahan made the choice not to bring him to SF, he knew the word would get out pretty quickly, thus having a pretty good idea what he's either going for, or getting already. I don't think it was a leak. Leaving him at home is pretty much a flag blowing in the wind for everyone to see.

socalorado1
08-13-2007, 10:02 AM
This news surprised me. I never was a big fan of Warren, but even with him on the roster I don't like our DT depth that much. Maybe we can get another underachieving DT in return for him, somebody like Travis Johnson from the Texans maybe?

In terms of draft pick value, Warren is probably worth a 4th, no more no less.

I like the idea of Justin McCareins he seems like he could be a good slot receiver and would be good depth to have.

I don't like the idea of Strahan, even if he comes back he is likely only a 1-year rental and he would take away reps from our young DEs. I don't think he is that good anymore anyway.

Over at the Mane, they are saying that he was a Heimindinger guy in Tenn and NY, so Dinger wants him here in Den. Also, that hes a pretty good KR guy as well as a vertical threat and is supposedly looking good in camp so far.

TheWookieeBronco
08-13-2007, 10:04 AM
I also believe since he didn't make the trip to SF the deal is basically done already...

I don't agree.

I think he didn't make the trip because the Broncos didn't want to risk him getting injured plus there's no point taking a player you are trying to ship.

I don't think we have reached agreement yet but I think the Broncos are defintley going to trade him now.

lex
08-13-2007, 10:06 AM
This is interesting, because I've been under the impression that Thomas was in the same mold as Warren.

Thomas is cheaper and was a lot better than Warren in college. Thomas was the best defensive lineman on the best defensive line in college football. Thomas was a huge disruptive force....much more so than Warren.

ballen
08-13-2007, 10:08 AM
The reason these things get leaked is because talks have already begun. There are people involved in these discussion and it gets out. I don't think it hurts his trade value at all. The people who were having the trade discussions were already doing so before everyone else knew about it.

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 10:09 AM
Thomas is cheaper and was a lot better than Warren in college. Thomas was the best defensive lineman on the best defensive line in college football. Thomas was a huge disruptive force....much more so than Warren.

Wait.. wasn't Warren a top pick in the NFL draft. Not just first round, but top THREE in the NFL draft? Even if Thomas would have stayed on the team, do you think he would have been picked that high?? Warren never played his professional career to meet his college expectations, but he was a MONSTER in college. Thomas may prove to be a better pro (maybe), but he wasn't a better college player.

Max Power
08-13-2007, 10:10 AM
Wait.. wasn't Warren a top pick in the NFL draft. Not just first round, but top THREE in the NFL draft? Even if Thomas would have stayed on the team, do you think he would have been picked that high?? Warren never played his professional career to meet his college expectations, but he was a MONSTER in college. Thomas may prove to be a better pro (maybe), but he wasn't a better college player.


Yeah, Warren was one of those "can't-miss" prospects at defensive tackle. He was thought to be the next Warren Sapp coming out (whom he idolizes).

underrated29
08-13-2007, 10:10 AM
WELL IF not strahan, we need atleast a 4th minn. thats what we paid for him, and these teams are desperate. so we got thte upper hand.

no doubt justin is good and can help this team, but i just dont know how much. we got javon, marshall, stokley. ROd if he makes a comeback (unfortunately i dont hink he will) so jsutin would be looking at 3/4 spot. that doesnt help us that much.

but i am no FO so i will trust their judgement. just what i feel

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 10:12 AM
It wouldn't surprise me this was a mutually desired trade.Warren doesn't want to play two gap,Bates doesn't want someone who isnt 100% committed.Best just to move him for whatever we can get.

lex
08-13-2007, 10:16 AM
Wait.. wasn't Warren a top pick in the NFL draft. Not just first round, but top THREE in the NFL draft? Even if Thomas would have stayed on the team, do you think he would have been picked that high?? Warren never played his professional career to meet his college expectations, but he was a MONSTER in college. Thomas may prove to be a better pro (maybe), but he wasn't a better college player.

You're talking to a Gator fan who has watched them very attentatively for many years. And Im telling you Thomas was the better player in college. He was more disruptive in the bigger games. Also, This was a relatively deep draft so things can become skewed when comparing places where a player was selected. But consider this. Jarvis Moss agrees that Thomas was the best DL on the Gators last year and if Moss went at 17, its not unthinkable Thomas could have gone well before that.

Firstwave64
08-13-2007, 10:17 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.


told ya he would never see his full contract

hilife
08-13-2007, 10:17 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6609357

this is not a shock to me, but what do you think we could get in return?

Jason Allen, safety who hasn't panned out with Miami could be a possibility I heard or the return of Donnie Spragan for some added depth at SLB I hear thats a possibility even tho im not too high on that idea.

it will most likely be a future draft pick.

but people are saying Miami is going after Warren pretty hard.

Interesting. I'm not to nice on the idea of getting rid of Warren and replacing with Kennedy. It's already proven that Kennedy is no good against the run and is more of a pass rush kind of DT. I'd rather keep Warren then have Kennedy replace him. But if we do trade Warren I hope we get something good for him. I think a early to mid third would be fair and maybe a 6th to go along with it.

Javalon
08-13-2007, 10:17 AM
Personally... I think if Shanahan made the choice not to bring him to SF, he knew the word would get out pretty quickly, thus having a pretty good idea what he's either going for, or getting already. I don't think it was a leak. Leaving him at home is pretty much a flag blowing in the wind for everyone to see.
I hope you're right. And I hope we hear something soon about a trade and don't have this dangling over our heads for a while.

evendelae
08-13-2007, 10:22 AM
Somewhere, Dream is crying tears of joy.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 10:28 AM
WELL IF not strahan, we need atleast a 4th minn. thats what we paid for him, and these teams are desperate. so we got thte upper hand.

no doubt justin is good and can help this team, but i just dont know how much. we got javon, marshall, stokley. ROd if he makes a comeback (unfortunately i dont hink he will) so jsutin would be looking at 3/4 spot. that doesnt help us that much.

but i am no FO so i will trust their judgement. just what i feelIf we do trade for Strahan I hope we dont get "Plummered" with this deal and Strahan decides to hang it up.:coffee:

ChampWJ
08-13-2007, 10:35 AM
If we do trade for Strahan I hope we dont get "Plummered" with this deal and Strahan decides to hang it up.:coffee:

Something about Strahan just doesn't appeal to me. Maybe it's the fact that he's old and on the downside of his career, or possibly because he's barely played in half of NY's games the last couple years. This would kind of remind me of Reggie White's Panthers days.

MoonDoy
08-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Interesting. I'm not to nice on the idea of getting rid of Warren and replacing with Kennedy. It's already proven that Kennedy is no good against the run and is more of a pass rush kind of DT. I'd rather keep Warren then have Kennedy replace him. But if we do trade Warren I hope we get something good for him. I think a early to mid third would be fair and maybe a 6th to go along with it.

I'm not too terribly concerned with run-stuffers, remember we have a good linebacking corps and if necessary we can always drop Lynch in the box. 8 Men the the box is no match for any O-line. Let Champ and Bly do their thing. Also you guys are talking like we only have pass rushers. In time I'm sure Moss, Thomas, Crowder will step it up and take over starting jobs AND get better vs run. Our D-line can't go worse, it can only get better vs the run.

And always, we could always suicide (what we did vs philly), that will always stop the run+put pressure on the QB.

underrated29
08-13-2007, 10:36 AM
If we do trade for Strahan I hope we dont get "Plummered" with this deal and Strahan decides to hang it up.:coffee:

iw as thinking the same thing, and i guess we would have to plummer themw where if he does hang it up, we get a 3rd, or something.


i also hate these freaking waiting games. i almost like it better finding out that we areinterested in signing/trading for a player like the day of. this whole offseason of henry,stokley,graham,bly--was driving me crazy.

i suppose its only fitting to go out with a bang, but this is a lot for one poor mans offseason.

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't think getting 'plummered' was a bad deal for the Bucs. They get 7.5 million in trade for a 6th (?) round pick. I would hope we could make the same kind of trade.

hilife
08-13-2007, 10:39 AM
I'm not too terribly concerned with run-stuffers, remember we have a good linebacking corps and if necessary we can always drop Lynch in the box. 8 Men the the box is no match for any O-line. Let Champ and Bly do their thing. Also you guys are talking like we only have pass rushers. In time I'm sure Moss, Thomas, Crowder will step it up and take over starting jobs AND get better vs run. Our D-line can't go worse, it can only get better vs the run.

When I said he only pass rush was because Bates system ask for Big bodys to take on blocks and stuff the run which would make Kennedy a bad fit. Worse then Warren.

TXBRONC
08-13-2007, 10:48 AM
Wait.. wasn't Warren a top pick in the NFL draft. Not just first round, but top THREE in the NFL draft? Even if Thomas would have stayed on the team, do you think he would have been picked that high?? Warren never played his professional career to meet his college expectations, but he was a MONSTER in college. Thomas may prove to be a better pro (maybe), but he wasn't a better college player.

Yes he was the 3rd overall pick in his draft class if I remember correcty.

gyldenlove
08-13-2007, 11:06 AM
Warren is difficult to rate, he played in some downright horrible defenses with Cleveland and had some injuries. He actually played very well with us his first year and would easily have been a pro bowler if he didn't have a bad name.

I don't really get why they would trade him now, he played with the first team D all camp, you would think Kennedy or Thomas could have used those reps more than a guy they are trying to trade. Kennedy has shown time and again that he is a big pass rusher, he gets good penetration but is not good at soaking up blocks to jam the middle, which is what they are saying about Warren and why he is not a fit, if that is true then Kennedy is just as bad a fit if not worse.

I don't know where these rumors come from, but I have my strong doubts. I think the reason they are leaving him at home is injury. It just doesn't add up to me at all if they move him now, unless they got an offer they couldn't refuse.

TXBRONC
08-13-2007, 11:07 AM
I'm not too terribly concerned with run-stuffers, remember we have a good linebacking corps and if necessary we can always drop Lynch in the box. 8 Men the the box is no match for any O-line. Let Champ and Bly do their thing. Also you guys are talking like we only have pass rushers. In time I'm sure Moss, Thomas, Crowder will step it up and take over starting jobs AND get better vs run. Our D-line can't go worse, it can only get better vs the run.

And always, we could always suicide (what we did vs philly), that will always stop the run+put pressure on the QB.

Bates wants to avoid having to use a zero coverage blitz, the pressure has to come from the front four. Also if it very important that the DT be very involved in stuffing the run. If they are not that means they are getting moved out of the way. The DT wont necessarily make a lot of tackles but they have hold the point of attack.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-13-2007, 11:13 AM
I am actually surprised by this. I thought by bringing in all these FA DTs this year that we were trying to build the D-line around Warren (and give him some help) who is still relatively young. Guess I was wrong. Maybe Warren brought this on himself by not only not playing up to his draft status and paycheck, but also never wanting to be a "clogger". I have no doubt his well documented attitude against being anything but a penetrating pass rusher (whuch he really wasn't much of, either) has contributed to us shopping him.

Personally, no matter who we deal him to, I'd prefer player compensation to just another low-round draft pick. we gave up a 4th to get him and I doubt we'd see more than a 5th for him now. I'd like to see a Safety or maybe a WR in retun for him instead of a draft pick that won't help us this year. I think we're poised to make a Superbowl run now and any help we get should help now. Next year will only make guys one year older. Vets like Henry, Champ, Bly, Graham, Walker, Lynch, and Ferguson are either in their prime or nearing the end of it. We need to make that push now while we have the talent to do so.

I'm still not thrilled at all with our Safety depth as we are still playing Foxy at a reserve Safety role. Hell, give Warren to KC for Wesley!

I'll be dissappointed if we trade away Warren, get smacked with his cap hit, and then only get a 5th rounder or less in return.

dogfish
08-13-2007, 11:22 AM
I am actually surprised by this. I thought by bringing in all these FA DTs this year that we were trying to build the D-line around Warren (and give him some help) who is still relatively young. Guess I was wrong. Maybe Warren brought this on himself by not only not playing up to his draft status and paycheck, but also never wanting to be a "clogger". I have no doubt his well documented attitude against being anything but a penetrating pass rusher (whuch he really wasn't much of, either) has contributed to us shopping him.

Personally, no matter who we deal him to, I'd prefer player compensation to just another low-round draft pick. we gave up a 4th to get him and I doubt we'd see more than a 5th for him now. I'd like to see a Safety or maybe a WR in retun for him instead of a draft pick that won't help us this year. I think we're poised to make a Superbowl run now and any help we get should help now. Next year will only make guys one year older. Vets like Henry, Champ, Bly, Graham, Walker, Lynch, and Ferguson are either in their prime or nearing the end of it. We need to make that push now while we have the talent to do so.

I'm still not thrilled at all with our Safety depth as we are still playing Foxy at a reserve Safety role. Hell, give Warren to KC for Wesley!

I'll be dissappointed if we trade away Warren, get smacked with his cap hit, and then only get a 5th rounder or less in return.

hate to say it, but i think you and everyone else in the thread should start preparing to be disappointed. . . these things are hard to gauge, and i won't rule out a nice deal simply because shenanigans (or sundquist, whoever) has proven to be pretty savvy making trades in the past-- but honestly, i have a hard time seeing us getting anything too exciting for warren. . . .

fullcollapse
08-13-2007, 11:25 AM
First off: Happy Gameday and an early Happy Maddenoliday to everyone!

This is suprising, especially since Kaylore's camp reports made it seem like Adams and Warren would be a solid starting duo.

The way I see it, we are trying to recoup a draft pick from the Kennedy trade. I doubt we will get any higher than a 6th for him.

But let's give credit where it's due, talentwise Warren can crack any 4-3 active roster in the league. Does he deserve the name "Big Money", is the real question? Evidently, we don't think so.

PatrickdaDookie
08-13-2007, 11:30 AM
On the Colts forums, the fans seemed pretty receptive to the idea of getting Warren for something along the lines of a conditional fourth round pick, if we pick up some of the salary.

I think that's about fair.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-13-2007, 11:32 AM
I find it amusing that Warren never changed his website while he was in Denver.His heart must of been in Cleveland still.




http://www.gerardwarren.com/

HORSEPOWER 56
08-13-2007, 11:34 AM
hate to say it, but i think you and everyone else in the thread should start preparing to be disappointed. . . these things are hard to gauge, and i won't rule out a nice deal simply because shenanigans (or sundquist, whoever) has proven to be pretty savvy making trades in the past-- but honestly, i have a hard time seeing us getting anything too exciting for warren. . . .

Oh, I'm not getting my hopes up and I see us getting screwed on this one. We're giving away a starting DT (maybe not 1st round pick quality but still starting quality - I'd call Warren average) for probably a late 2nd day pick. I think he holds more value for another player than he does for draft picks.

If Terrance Wilkins was still a Colt, (which he's not, I checked) I wouldn't have a problem giving up Warren for him...at least he's a darn good returner (something we still don't know if we have).

Does Miami have anything we need? Who else out there is a potential trade candidate? Is there a way to fleece the Deadskins some more? ;)

ballen
08-13-2007, 11:36 AM
On the Colts forums, the fans seemed pretty receptive to the idea of getting Warren for something along the lines of a conditional fourth round pick, if we pick up some of the salary.

I think that's about fair.

Don't trade him to the Colts. That's just stupid.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-13-2007, 11:45 AM
On the Colts forums, the fans seemed pretty receptive to the idea of getting Warren for something along the lines of a conditional fourth round pick, if we pick up some of the salary.

I think that's about fair.

I don't want a draft pick. Trade him for a player that can contribute this year when we need it. Indy is pretty desperate for DT help so I say...Warren for Bethea - even swap! ;)

silkamilkamonic
08-13-2007, 11:53 AM
If Denver really is in talks for McCareins, it kind of tells you the actual state of our WR situation.

Rarely do WR's get signed or traded this late and actually go on to give any kind of production.

I'm thinking the coaching staff feels the WR position is in depseration mode if they really are talking in trades for McCareins.

fullcollapse
08-13-2007, 11:54 AM
Lightbulb: We are trading him to make a roster spot for TANK JONHSON!




Only kidding... don't hurt me

Ravage!!!
08-13-2007, 11:55 AM
If Denver really is in talks for McCareins, it kind of tells you the actual state of our WR situation.

Rarely do WR's get signed or traded this late and actually go on to give any kind of production.

I'm thinking the coaching staff feels the WR position is in depseration mode if they really are talking in trades for McCareins.

could be a combination. We have enough depth at DT, and the injuries to our WR corp is becoming a concern for the season long haul.

WABronco
08-13-2007, 11:57 AM
If Denver really is in talks for McCareins, it kind of tells you the actual state of our WR situation.

Rarely do WR's get signed or traded this late and actually go on to give any kind of production.

I'm thinking the coaching staff feels the WR position is in depseration mode if they really are talking in trades for McCareins.

Well, he's had 4 or 5 years under Heimerdinger, and all he really does is run deep/bomb routes.

Sign me up.

socalorado1
08-13-2007, 11:59 AM
If Denver really is in talks for McCareins, it kind of tells you the actual state of our WR situation.

Rarely do WR's get signed or traded this late and actually go on to give any kind of production.

I'm thinking the coaching staff feels the WR position is in depseration mode if they really are talking in trades for McCareins.

If its true, i think i just follows the depth theory for players. Who knows maybe he turns out to be pretty good, but i think its a heimindinger move for depth more than anything else. I guess he looks real good in camp, so maybe the Broncos had to wait till now to make a move....

antiwup
08-13-2007, 12:13 PM
i wasnt a big fan of warren any way. yeah hes a good guy but when it comes down to it we have to improve our d-line and to improve it we got to get rid of personnel that dont fit the system. with warren leaving we got some big dudes to fill the void and i think jarvis moss and thomas will be in the starting lineup several times this year. its best for the team, it was nice having you around gerard hope your career ends on a good note on another team.

NinjaPirateFunk
08-13-2007, 12:16 PM
McCareins is big, not a bad blocker, and can produce decently when he's in an offense that's suited to him.

i still think to this day, during steve mcnair's "mvp" year, his receivers and scheme were what helped him. tennessee basically said screw it, and ran 3-4 wr sets all game long, and defenses scrambled to try and cover all of them because they were a very good, balanced wr corp. and mccareins contributed greatly. mason, mccareins, bennett at third and calico at fourth. that was a stupidly underrated group of wrs. that's balance right there. ideal balance.

not to say we'll run 3-4 wr plays as much as they did, but it shows he's no slouch when he's targeted, and our offense should let him get seperation. more than the jets at least. i think he could be a 1000 yard receiver in the right system.

WABronco
08-13-2007, 12:50 PM
McCareins is big, not a bad blocker, and can produce decently when he's in an offense that's suited to him.

i still think to this day, during steve mcnair's "mvp" year, his receivers and scheme were what helped him. tennessee basically said screw it, and ran 3-4 wr sets all game long, and defenses scrambled to try and cover all of them because they were a very good, balanced wr corp. and mccareins contributed greatly. mason, mccareins, bennett at third and calico at fourth. that was a stupidly underrated group of wrs. that's balance right there. ideal balance.

not to say we'll run 3-4 wr plays as much as they did, but it shows he's no slouch when he's targeted, and our offense should let him get seperation. more than the jets at least. i think he could be a 1000 yard receiver in the right system.

Totally agreed.

...and the spread was basically our passing game when Cutler took over. He'd be a great fit in Denver.

blue diamond
08-13-2007, 12:52 PM
Strahan will tell Farve to fall down and be touched for "sack".

I think it'd be incredibly stupid to trade him to the Colts. :fight:

Morambar
08-13-2007, 12:58 PM
If it is a done deal, and not just resting an injury, I just hope we get a good LB out of it; I'm not any more thrilled about the idea of giving up a starter for a late pick next year than anyone else is. It's true Warren doesn't really fit the mold of a huge clogging DT, but at the same time we don't really have anyone that does apart from Adams, who won't be here long. After him we have Kennedy, McKinley and Thomas, all of whom are more in the same mold of quick tackles who get penetration than man-mountains who force people to go around them because they can't go through them. The idea of giving up a starting DT when I thought all along we needed good DTs more than DEs, and just getting a #3 or 4 WR gives me chills.

We have a number of good receivers who are dinged; on the other hand, two of the leading candidates to take over Sam from D.J. just left football, leaving us to choose from D.D. Lewis, if he's healthy, our 228 lb. backup Will, our (only) backup Mike or second year Cameron Vaughn. Some folks seem to think Lewis is the leading contender if it's not Webster, but I personally think that's by default, and the reservations I had last season about our depth at Mike are only deepening with time. Personally, I think big dominating DTs and fast, smart LBs with good tackling and hands are our two greatest needs at the moment, so if we're trading away one of our starting DTs I hope we get the LB in exchange. Otherwise "I don't want to run stop" Kennedy will be run stopping with Adams this season, and once Adams finally retires.... :sad:

BroncoStampede
08-13-2007, 01:10 PM
Does anyone think we'll be able to get anything more than a 5th round pick for Warren?

SoCaliBronco
08-13-2007, 01:13 PM
Ok, thats a shame that Gerrard is on the block. But, if im remebering correctly, Jimmy Kennedy was a road block in St.Louis. He was the kind of tackle that wanted to go for the sack, which is what Gerrard wants to do. In St.Louis they wanted him to plug holes. How is he happy here doing the exactly same thing that he was disgruntled about in St.Louis. Sorry for any redundency.

jhns
08-13-2007, 01:21 PM
Does anyone think we'll be able to get anything more than a 5th round pick for Warren?

It all depends. People act like they can judge a players trade value when really they have no idea. That is why people always act so surprised when players are traded for way more or less than their "value".

The value of a player is decided almost entirely by other teams. Much like a collectors item, it is worth what people will pay for it. If a team finished camp and realized they really needed a DT this season, they will offer a lot more than a team that gets called by us to instigate a trade. If it was another team that is in need of a DT and we where not thinking of trading him before, it is likely very much in our favor and well above a 5th round pick. If we put him on the block and 8 teams want him right away, we are getting far more than a 5th rounder. If we put him on the block and noone really needs him but there is a little interest by someone (which they will know that noone else wants him), we are probably not even getting a 5th.

broncos_mtnman
08-13-2007, 01:36 PM
"Big Money" was a Big Bust IMO. I stated this when we gave him his big raise.

Shanny, with all his success, has made some big mistakes with contracts in the past.

Griese - Plummer - Carter - are just a few that come to mind.

Warren was a bust in Cleveland and we took a chance with him and the other Browncos.

I guess Shanny is seeing why these guys were available in the first place. Thank goodness Bates is here to hopefully clean up this mess.

TR3Y
08-13-2007, 01:40 PM
"Big Money" was a Big Bust IMO. I stated this when we gave him his big raise.

Shanny, with all his success, has made some big mistakes with contracts in the past.

Griese - Plummer - Carter - are just a few that come to mind.

Warren was a bust in Cleveland and we took a chance with him and the other Browncos.

I guess Shanny is seeing why these guys were available in the first place. Thank goodness Bates is here to hopefully clean up this mess.

I agree 110% :rolleyes:

The Browncos have been an absolute nightmare :goofy:

Good riddance Browns castoffs....there was a reason the Browns didn't want them :coffee:

underrated29
08-13-2007, 01:45 PM
MMMMM. does any one know anything else? or anyone have a good idea of when this may or may not get done?

because its got me all giddy, and anytime i leave and come back there are more responses. I think they are updates but just discussions. Nothing wrong with that either. I love them, i just dont want to keep looking foreward to seeing something and its not there.

i know, i need patients. but i am soo excited for this game tonight, and any news is better then working on a busy monday.

jhns
08-13-2007, 02:09 PM
MMMMM. does any one know anything else? or anyone have a good idea of when this may or may not get done?

because its got me all giddy, and anytime i leave and come back there are more responses. I think they are updates but just discussions. Nothing wrong with that either. I love them, i just dont want to keep looking foreward to seeing something and its not there.

i know, i need patients. but i am soo excited for this game tonight, and any news is better then working on a busy monday.

I'm sure any update or any trade will have at least 10-15 threads instantly made about them. You really don't need to check back here expecting anything unless you see all of those as well.

NinjaPirateFunk
08-13-2007, 02:41 PM
shanny's a gambler. gamblers will have their share of failures. but it never hurts us as much as it would other teams, and we see vastly more positives out of him than negatives.

i'm not totally against mccareins. i think if we acquire him, it pretty much ends kircus' season. we've got walker and marshall, with stokley third. that's more or less set right now, wuth mccareins and hixon battling for time, key being, they're all of enough ability to move up a spot on the chart if we need them to, esp JM who has 700-800 yard seasons against #2 corners.

and if we're willing to trade warren, i'm confident there's a good reason.

Max Power
08-13-2007, 02:53 PM
Warren for Michael Clayton of the Bucs sounds good to me. Tampa Bay has a need at DT. I would even throw in a 5th round pick to sweeten the deal for them.

WABronco
08-13-2007, 03:31 PM
Warren for Michael Clayton of the Bucs sounds good to me. Tampa Bay has a need at DT. I would even throw in a 5th round pick to sweeten the deal for them.

I like the way you think....

muse
08-13-2007, 03:36 PM
Warren for Michael Clayton of the Bucs sounds good to me. Tampa Bay has a need at DT. I would even throw in a 5th round pick to sweeten the deal for them.

We could also persuade Gerard to retire when he gets there just to hack them off a little more :goofy:

underrated29
08-13-2007, 03:48 PM
We could also persuade Gerard to retire when he gets there just to hack them off a little more :goofy:

of course they have to send us a conditional low round pick if he does;)

Dream
08-13-2007, 04:02 PM
I called this over a year ago. *pats self on back*

BroncFanIN
08-13-2007, 04:07 PM
I called this over a year ago. *pats self on back*

Modesty and flexabilty, all wrapped in one guitar wielding package. You da man! :rockon:

:cheers:

MindField
08-13-2007, 04:08 PM
The Broncos have reportedly been unhappy with him for some time now...no suprise, but kinda silly....if you are going to fire-sale a guy, you beter have someone else available....not sure the Broncos do.

Dream
08-13-2007, 04:13 PM
Modesty and flexabilty, all wrapped in one guitar wielding package. You da man! :rockon:

:cheers:

I hate propping myself, but a lot of people here have given me grief for my concerns surrounding Warren. When he got his extension, I was one of the first to absolutely throw my hands up in the air. I cried myself to sleep that night.

It's not just injuries, it's just the way he plays the game. He has always had a poor attitude and he has never wanted to be the kind of guy Bates' likes having at defensive tackle. He'll go somewhere else. I'm not sure what kind of selection we'll get from him but I'd have to say it'd be in the range of a Future 3rd Rounder (2009) or a 4th Rounder this year. That's just my guess. I can't think of any player deals that come to mind, but Denver getting some extra ammunition would really make sense for them. We could get back into the third round this year.

Like I said, Warren has been a career underachiever for his potential and talent that he has. Once heralded as a possible Warren Sapp like player, he has settled for being mediocre at the NFL level.

My guess is that Denver is more than impressed with Thomas and Kennedy, and Adams will fill in for this year. Mike, (SoCal) thinks that the coaches could be high on Burton too, since he's a pretty good fit for what we want to do here.

One thing that excites me is that this tackle class in 2008 is exceptional, maybe we could get Thomas a long-term running mate. That'd be fantastic.

I figured, along with MUG and a few others that he could be gone by the end of the pre-season. I'll cheer when the day comes.

TheWookieeBronco
08-13-2007, 04:23 PM
The Broncos have reportedly been unhappy with him for some time now...no suprise, but kinda silly....if you are going to fire-sale a guy, you beter have someone else available....not sure the Broncos do.

I agree.

Sam Adams is aging.

Marcus Thomas looks good but he has no experience.

Alvin McKinley used to play for the Browns, let's leave it at that :P. Seriously Alvin McKinley isn't good enough.

The only thing I can think of is if Shanahan and Bates are really confident about Jimmy Kennedy.

Who knows what we are thinking, most likely though at this stage it's Sam Adams and Jimmy Kennedy.

EDIT: I like Dream's idea of drafting a long term teammate to go with Marcus Thomas if Marcus Thomas shows potential this season.

Broncosinindy
08-13-2007, 04:59 PM
It's a good point.

Thomas doesn't exactly fit the mold of a DT in Bates scheme and they seem to be high on him.

I've been saying this since the draft. they wont listen until they see it in a couple of years.

bavanlan
08-13-2007, 05:02 PM
For those of you wanting a player in return, what is your status at OG? We've (Colts) got more OG's than we'll probably keep on the roster, and our OG's fit your schemes.

Broncosinindy
08-13-2007, 05:29 PM
T
I hate propping myself, but a lot of people here have given me grief for my concerns surrounding Warren. When he got his extension, I was one of the first to absolutely throw my hands up in the air. I cried myself to sleep that night.

It's not just injuries, it's just the way he plays the game. He has always had a poor attitude and he has never wanted to be the kind of guy Bates' likes having at defensive tackle. He'll go somewhere else. I'm not sure what kind of selection we'll get from him but I'd have to say it'd be in the range of a Future 3rd Rounder (2009) or a 4th Rounder this year. That's just my guess. I can't think of any player deals that come to mind, but Denver getting some extra ammunition would really make sense for them. We could get back into the third round this year.

Like I said, Warren has been a career underachiever for his potential and talent that he has. Once heralded as a possible Warren Sapp like player, he has settled for being mediocre at the NFL level.

My guess is that Denver is more than impressed with Thomas and Kennedy, and Adams will fill in for this year. Mike, (SoCal) thinks that the coaches could be high on Burton too, since he's a pretty good fit for what we want to do here.

One thing that excites me is that this tackle class in 2008 is exceptional, maybe we could get Thomas a long-term running mate. That'd be fantastic.

I figured, along with MUG and a few others that he could be gone by the end of the pre-season. I'll cheer when the day comes.

Ive been looking at the upcoming draft at DT/NT types this is a great year for them for what we would like to do. No doubt i don't disagree. i just hope we don't REACH for one of these guys. at this point at where we are we could be picking i think we have to look at frank okam. also a bonus is that penetraters hold more value and we could get a decent NT in the second or third. i like Okam but i would rather not spend a first rounder on a Tackle. i think we can get good value on NT in the second or third

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-13-2007, 07:59 PM
http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showpost.php?p=1889284&postcount=46


It wouldn't surprise me to see Warren cut this pre-season, or more likely traded. There are many teams that need DTs, such as the Colts, and those teams won't be too picky, and we could probably fleece them. That said, our depth at DT is less than stellar, and Marcus Thomas can't be counted on as a long term answer quite yet, so we might be reluctant to part with any player that shows an ounce of talent.


I'm not entirely sure what is going on with Mckinley. He's a good player, and while obviously the pick-up of Sam Adams hurts his play time, it's hard for me to understand him being stuck on the 3rd team unless he showed up to camp overweight or did something to get in Shanahan's dog house. The fact that we gave him a large contract suggests something happened to cause him to be buried. Hopefully, he's given a fair shake because once Adams wears down mid-way through the year, I think he'll be our most consistent DT.


I hope they fix this white background soon, ugh.


Needless to say, not surprised. And I continue to believe we will fleece the Colts in a Warren trade. If so, I'm playing the lotto the rest of the year.

Buff_bronc_fan
08-13-2007, 08:39 PM
http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showpost.php?p=1889284&postcount=46




Needless to say, not surprised. And I continue to believe we will fleece the Colts in a Warren trade. If so, I'm playing the lotto the rest of the year.

You definitely saw that one comin... I remember reading that and pretty much writing it off for this year-- I just figured that since he restructured his contract, and had the bulk Bates was looking for, he'd be a stopgap for one more year.

My question is, was it more him playing his way out of the position, or the other guys playing their way in??

Broncosinindy
08-13-2007, 09:07 PM
well the guys on the mane are saying that he will be traded or cut tomorrow. with the most likely scenario going with the cut. they reported that Adam schaeffer is following it.

Cugel
08-13-2007, 09:08 PM
I frankly don't understand this trade idea! Not that Warren is great or particularly good.

But, I thought they'd get a year out of him and then cut him next year. Looks like there's some undeclared reason why he's being traded. Perhaps he made it clear to Bates that he doesn't like being a run-stuffing DT.

But, the STATED reason that Warren doesn't fit the system CAN'T be true. Just look at who the Broncos have now at DT!

With Warren gone, that moves Jimmy Kennedy into the lineup opposite Adams. As several posters have noted Adams is the ONLY current Bronco DT who fits the mold of a huge run-stuffer. Warren at least had the size to do it.

Kennedy is no longer a Ram because he couldn't fill that role. He wanted to rush the passer, not fill the lanes. So, how is he an improvement over Warren? At least he's cheaper.

And Amon Gordon? He's not very big or good either - 6'2" 305. How does THAT fit the system? He's a scrub at best, but at this rate he's going to be seeing significant starting time because Adams won't be able to go more than about 15 plays a game, if he can stay healthy enough to remain in the lineup at all. They are already trying to baby his knees, letting him only practice once a day in camp and putting ice packs on his knees to try and keep them from getting inflamed. I'm not confident at all he'll last the entire season without going onto the IR.

And behind him is exactly whom? Marcus Thomas is currently listed as 2nd behind Warren. Obviously, that isn't right. He's shown in camp that he's not ready for the NFL yet. He has promise, but missed most of his senior year and needs a lot more practice before he'll be ready to play in the rotation.

So, that leaves Alvin McKinley who is even smaller than Burton at 294. How is he supposed to fit Bates' system? He's 6'4" but thin. That's not strong at the point of attack. In any event he's another scrub like Burton. I don't see him as a viable solution.

And finally, there's Demetrin Veal. Another pint-sized overachiever with little talent - 6'2" 288! How is HE going to be able to hold the middle? Answer not very well at all!

So, unless Marcus Thomas makes some HUGE strides either Burton or McKinley will be starting at least 1/2 the time! And Jimmy Kennedy will be starting at RT in place of Warren.

I just don't see how this is any improvement over last year. :confused:

As for getting Michael Strahan, what good is that? He's only being offered because he's old and costs a mint! A VERY expensive one-year rental even assuming he has anything left in the tank, which is not at all certain. The team has a bunch of DEs. Perhaps this is proof that they are not happy starting the season with Engleberger at LDE. That would at least make sense to me. But, why not give Crowder a chance? Why dump Warren's salary (and take the cap hit) only to bring in Strahan whose cap hit next season will make Warren look like a junior leaguer!

If the team was going to do this they should have done it a month ago before training camp!

DiehardinAlaska
08-13-2007, 09:26 PM
For those of us who watched the game, let me say that we should not be so hasty to dump Warren. Those 9ers, without Gore, were GASHING us in those first two series. Thank God Nolan switched out to his second stringers.

Sam_Z
08-13-2007, 09:40 PM
I frankly don't understand this trade idea! Not that Warren is great or particularly good.

But, I thought they'd get a year out of him and then cut him next year. Looks like there's some undeclared reason why he's being traded. Perhaps he made it clear to Bates that he doesn't like being a run-stuffing DT.

But, the STATED reason that Warren doesn't fit the system CAN'T be true. Just look at who the Broncos have now at DT!

With Warren gone, that moves Jimmy Kennedy into the lineup opposite Adams. As several posters have noted Adams is the ONLY current Bronco DT who fits the mold of a huge run-stuffer. Warren at least had the size to do it.

Kennedy is no longer a Ram because he couldn't fill that role. He wanted to rush the passer, not fill the lanes. So, how is he an improvement over Warren? At least he's cheaper.

And Amon Gordon? He's not very big or good either - 6'2" 305. How does THAT fit the system? He's a scrub at best, but at this rate he's going to be seeing significant starting time because Adams won't be able to go more than about 15 plays a game, if he can stay healthy enough to remain in the lineup at all. They are already trying to baby his knees, letting him only practice once a day in camp and putting ice packs on his knees to try and keep them from getting inflamed. I'm not confident at all he'll last the entire season without going onto the IR.

And behind him is exactly whom? Marcus Thomas is currently listed as 2nd behind Warren. Obviously, that isn't right. He's shown in camp that he's not ready for the NFL yet. He has promise, but missed most of his senior year and needs a lot more practice before he'll be ready to play in the rotation.

So, that leaves Alvin McKinley who is even smaller than Burton at 294. How is he supposed to fit Bates' system? He's 6'4" but thin. That's not strong at the point of attack. In any event he's another scrub like Burton. I don't see him as a viable solution.

And finally, there's Demetrin Veal. Another pint-sized overachiever with little talent - 6'2" 288! How is HE going to be able to hold the middle? Answer not very well at all!

So, unless Marcus Thomas makes some HUGE strides either Burton or McKinley will be starting at least 1/2 the time! And Jimmy Kennedy will be starting at RT in place of Warren.

I just don't see how this is any improvement over last year. :confused:

As for getting Michael Strahan, what good is that? He's only being offered because he's old and costs a mint! A VERY expensive one-year rental even assuming he has anything left in the tank, which is not at all certain. The team has a bunch of DEs. Perhaps this is proof that they are not happy starting the season with Engleberger at LDE. That would at least make sense to me. But, why not give Crowder a chance? Why dump Warren's salary (and take the cap hit) only to bring in Strahan whose cap hit next season will make Warren look like a junior leaguer!

If the team was going to do this they should have done it a month ago before training camp!

I agree, there has got to be something more, alot more than they are leading on.

It reminds me of David Bowens, a former Bronco rookie who seemed to hold alot of promise but out of the blue Shanahan released him and based it on a locker room incident, but thats all the coach ever let out of the bag.

From the looks of it, Warren will be traded and perhaps we will never know the true reason.

Dream
08-13-2007, 09:45 PM
Here's the reason why the Broncos are getting rid of Warren.

He's a career underachiever who has a piss poor attitude towards playing the position and does not like doing what is being required of him in this defense. Regardless of injury, he performed terribly last year, and the part I will cite from another source (PFT) is that Warren goes soft when he gets paid the money.

Extending him was a mistake. We can only hope some team bites and gives us something in return, something good. A fleece would be nice, but even if we got a fourth it's a start.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-13-2007, 10:00 PM
Here's the reason why the Broncos are getting rid of Warren.

He's a career underachiever who has a piss poor attitude towards playing the position and does not like doing what is being required of him in this defense. Regardless of injury, he performed terribly last year, and the part I will cite from another source (PFT) is that Warren goes soft when he gets paid the money.

Extending him was a mistake. We can only hope some team bites and gives us something in return, something good. A fleece would be nice, but even if we got a fourth it's a start.

Exactly right.

And Cugel, the reason we are saying "he doesn't fit the system" is that we are trying not to destroy any remaining trade leverage we have left by saying "he's a fat, lazy slob that sucks". He fits the system, he just doesn't like to clog and he probably whines like a baby with a diaper rash.



I'm standing firm in my resolve that Alvin McKinley will be our best DT at season's end. I think he's a great player, and while he doesn't have the massive size usually associated with Bates-type tackles, he is very very good at 2-gap responsibilities very similar to another player I have a high opinion of in Marques Douglas, both of which I think are solid 4-3 NTs.



Finally, here's my last prediction...I predict that whereever Warren ends up, he will give an interview saying how he hated the way he was used in Denver (clogging) and that he facilitated the trade/release to go to a scheme that better fits his "elite pass rushing talents". /yawn.

PatrickdaDookie
08-13-2007, 10:22 PM
Either he has a bad attitude, or Warren's been to IHOP recently...

stnzed
08-13-2007, 10:24 PM
I frankly don't understand this trade idea! Not that Warren is great or particularly good.

But, I thought they'd get a year out of him and then cut him next year. Looks like there's some undeclared reason why he's being traded. Perhaps he made it clear to Bates that he doesn't like being a run-stuffing DT.

But, the STATED reason that Warren doesn't fit the system CAN'T be true. Just look at who the Broncos have now at DT!

With Warren gone, that moves Jimmy Kennedy into the lineup opposite Adams. As several posters have noted Adams is the ONLY current Bronco DT who fits the mold of a huge run-stuffer. Warren at least had the size to do it.

Kennedy is no longer a Ram because he couldn't fill that role. He wanted to rush the passer, not fill the lanes. So, how is he an improvement over Warren? At least he's cheaper.

And Amon Gordon? He's not very big or good either - 6'2" 305. How does THAT fit the system? He's a scrub at best, but at this rate he's going to be seeing significant starting time because Adams won't be able to go more than about 15 plays a game, if he can stay healthy enough to remain in the lineup at all. They are already trying to baby his knees, letting him only practice once a day in camp and putting ice packs on his knees to try and keep them from getting inflamed. I'm not confident at all he'll last the entire season without going onto the IR.

And behind him is exactly whom? Marcus Thomas is currently listed as 2nd behind Warren. Obviously, that isn't right. He's shown in camp that he's not ready for the NFL yet. He has promise, but missed most of his senior year and needs a lot more practice before he'll be ready to play in the rotation.

So, that leaves Alvin McKinley who is even smaller than Burton at 294. How is he supposed to fit Bates' system? He's 6'4" but thin. That's not strong at the point of attack. In any event he's another scrub like Burton. I don't see him as a viable solution.

And finally, there's Demetrin Veal. Another pint-sized overachiever with little talent - 6'2" 288! How is HE going to be able to hold the middle? Answer not very well at all!

So, unless Marcus Thomas makes some HUGE strides either Burton or McKinley will be starting at least 1/2 the time! And Jimmy Kennedy will be starting at RT in place of Warren.

I just don't see how this is any improvement over last year. :confused:

As for getting Michael Strahan, what good is that? He's only being offered because he's old and costs a mint! A VERY expensive one-year rental even assuming he has anything left in the tank, which is not at all certain. The team has a bunch of DEs. Perhaps this is proof that they are not happy starting the season with Engleberger at LDE. That would at least make sense to me. But, why not give Crowder a chance? Why dump Warren's salary (and take the cap hit) only to bring in Strahan whose cap hit next season will make Warren look like a junior leaguer!

If the team was going to do this they should have done it a month ago before training camp!

Trading/cutting Warren doesn't make sense to me either.

Warren is easily better than Gordon and Veal, and getting rid of him furthur weakens a defense that got pushed around fairly easy tonight.

The bottom line is that the DL is still a major issue, though it is just the 1st week of preseason. Shanahan just cannot figure it out, and imo, he may never figure it out.

Since the SB years he's tried everything and failed, and now he's gonna to try going into the season with the possibility of players like McKinley/Gordon/Veal being counted on. Not to mention Kennedy, who doesn't seem to be any better than Warren.

I find it hard to believe that this great coaching staff can't their money's worth out of Warren, at least for this year, like you said.....And considering whats left on the shelf, trading/cutting him will be incredibly stupid.

I know this has Dream and MUG excited, but that doesn't make this move any less stupid.

There had better be a plan, because this in/of itself isn't making the Broncos a better team.

And if MCKinley is in fact the best DT by years end, the Broncos are screwed....

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-14-2007, 12:13 AM
Trading/cutting Warren doesn't make sense to me either.

Warren is easily better than Gordon and Veal, and getting rid of him furthur weakens a defense that got pushed around fairly easy tonight.

The bottom line is that the DL is still a major issue, though it is just the 1st week of preseason. Shanahan just cannot figure it out, and imo, he may never figure it out.

Since the SB years he's tried everything and failed, and now he's gonna to try going into the season with the possibility of players like McKinley/Gordon/Veal being counted on. Not to mention Kennedy, who doesn't seem to be any better than Warren.

I find it hard to believe that this great coaching staff can't their money's worth out of Warren, at least for this year, like you said.....And considering whats left on the shelf, trading/cutting him will be incredibly stupid.

I know this has Dream and MUG excited, but that doesn't make this move any less stupid.

There had better be a plan, because this in/of itself isn't making the Broncos a better team.

And if MCKinley is in fact the best DT by years end, the Broncos are screwed....


I'm not really "excited" by his release, it's more of just the realization of what I thought would happen. I would have been more excited had Warren played up to his contract.

I guarantee you that Warren facilitated this trade/release. He's been running with the 1st team most of camp, and now he's dropped. I believe he whined about the scheme and sealed his ticket out of town. I don't believe the Broncos wanted to cut him originally, but I think the signing of Adams and the relatively solid play of Kennedy made it so the team did not have to put up with his BS. He was a cancer in Cleveland when asked to clog, and he likely would be a cancer here. I dont think the Broncos have much choice.

Plus, I think we can fleece a 4th rounder from the Colts. I'm not sure a team has ever needed a DT as bad as they do, I can't imagine they take the risk that we release him and he signs elsewhere. The only thing which may hold them up is the recent fiasco with another vastly similar player in Corey Simon. The idea of trading Warren to the Bucs for Micheal Clayton makes sense too since Clayton is a 4th string WR at the moment and in danger of being cut.

I'd rather have a 4th rounder though. I love 4th rounders. You get an entire night to research which players slipped out of the first day, and the 4th is where alot of the high risk/high reward players get drafted (like Thomas or Micheal Bush). Those guys are always fun to take a flier on.


Finally, don't sell McKinley short. He's very good, kind of an odd fit for our team, but he's a very good player if he gets the chance to play. And when the 340lbers break down mid-year, he will.

TrueDieHard
08-14-2007, 01:16 AM
anyone else hear the report about gerard warren on nfl network now.. he said warren would most likely not be with us this year.

ohh just found this on nfl.com
http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/DEN/10294206



Broncos looking to trade DT Warren

NFL.com wire reports



SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 14, 2007) -- The Denver Broncos expect to part ways soon with defensive tackle Gerard Warren, either by trading or releasing the seven-year veteran.

Warren didn't make the trip to San Francisco for the Broncos' 17-13 preseason victory over the 49ers. After the game, coach Mike Shanahan indicated Warren probably is on his way out of Denver.

"I'm not going to get into detail, but we thought we had a trade, and I'll talk about it a little more on Wednesday," Shanahan said. "Until things are finalized, I kept him home because I thought we had a trade."

Warren, the third overall pick in the 2001 draft by Cleveland, spent the last two seasons in Denver, making 49 tackles and 5 1/2 sacks. He revitalized his career with the Broncos after struggling through four seasons with the Browns.

But Warren apparently doesn't fit new defensive coach Jim Bates' scheme, which requires tackles who can hold their positions instead of penetrating the backfield. Warren seemed open to the transition earlier in camp, speaking optimistically about the new defense.

"He'll land on his feet somewhere, so it's a good thing for him," Broncos defensive end Kenard Lang said. "He'll get a chance to go somewhere else and play, and in a way it's a positive. He'll get some new scenery, and he'll be ready to go."

Jimmy Kennedy, a former starter for St. Louis acquired in an offseason trade, is listed behind Warren on the Broncos' depth chart, but Amon Gordon started in his place against the 49ers.

"We've got about 10 guys at that position," Shanahan said. "So I know what Gerard can do, and it'll give me a chance to evaluate some of those other guys."

Botan
08-14-2007, 02:34 AM
So he thought they had a trade? what does that mean, does he still have the trade or did it fall thought? I'm confused:confused:

Spyder
08-14-2007, 03:02 AM
Very interesting.

After following the Broncos for as long as I have, I've come to learn to expect the unexpected.

So if we had a trade... I'm curious of who it was with and whom in involved.

silkamilkamonic
08-14-2007, 04:55 AM
Warren will most likely be cut.

That's ok, he was raping Denver on the cap end to production ratio and is attitude grew tiresome with the coaches.

At this point I'm hoping our offense can score, because when it comes to the elite teams like SD, and possibly playoffs if we get that far, I see our oline getting used and abused.

Tipster19
08-14-2007, 07:07 AM
Hey Bronco fans, I'm a Bills' fan and I'm curious to find out more about Warren. I'm wondering if he could be a good fit for Buffalo. With the conduct policies playing a big part in today's game I was wondering if there are issues with this guy. In addition to that, how good of a DT is he really? Thanks for any insights.

gyldenlove
08-14-2007, 07:49 AM
He has never had any issues with law enforcement and has never been in the leagues substance abuse program so he is clean. He was drafted 3rd overall back in the day after a stellar college career so he has always kept his nose clean.

To my mind he effective in the short areas, making tackles in the middle and getting in the backfield to break up plays or at least change plays. I think he is a pretty run off the mill DT that will fit in most systems.

socalorado1
08-14-2007, 08:04 AM
Hey Bronco fans, I'm a Bills' fan and I'm curious to find out more about Warren. I'm wondering if he could be a good fit for Buffalo. With the conduct policies playing a big part in today's game I was wondering if there are issues with this guy. In addition to that, how good of a DT is he really? Thanks for any insights.

Tell your boy Marv, that we will trade him for KO straight up!

Tipster19
08-14-2007, 08:17 AM
Now that won't happen but if you would of saif TKO a few months ago then that probably would of worked.

Orange Cru$h
08-14-2007, 08:38 AM
For those of us who watched the game, let me say that we should not be so hasty to dump Warren. Those 9ers, without Gore, were GASHING us in those first two series. Thank God Nolan switched out to his second stringers.

I know I was hoping to see WAY more last night. After all the reports of camp I thought our d-line was stacked. Boy was I wrong.

stnzed
08-14-2007, 08:51 AM
He has never had any issues with law enforcement and has never been in the leagues substance abuse program so he is clean. He was drafted 3rd overall back in the day after a stellar college career so he has always kept his nose clean.

To my mind he effective in the short areas, making tackles in the middle and getting in the backfield to break up plays or at least change plays. I think he is a pretty run off the mill DT that will fit in most systems.


See that's the point: All of the Broncos D-lineman are run-of-the-mill. All of them!

Dumping one guy because they think he could be playing better doesn't change the fact that the guys behind him are even more useless.

The Broncos strategy this year seemed to be to throw numbers at the opponents in waves because there sure as hell isn't any Jamal Williams' on this team.

Like I said, I just hope they have a plan because this doesn't improve the team....

Mount-n-Groan
08-14-2007, 09:03 AM
I read the following on PFT this morning...


Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that the Broncos will part ways with defensive tackle Gerard Warren as early as Tuesday. Warren will either be traded or released.

The Broncos, per Schefter, are talking to the Redskins, Saints, Colts, and Dolphins. But if Warren is going to be cut anyway, the only reason to trade for Warren would be to buy his contract.

Though Warren has reduced his 2007 pay down to $595,000, the base salary shoots up to $4 million in 2008. So there's no reason to buy that deal.

The problem with Warren, as one league insider explained it to us, is that he gets complacent when he gets paid. So after the Broncos rewarded him for a strong 2005 by giving him a new deal in 2006, Warren (some believe) went soft.

You'd think that Mike Shanahan would have learned his lesson when he paid Darryl Gardener a bunch of money after Gardener got his act together during a contract year in Washington.

Bottom line -- buyer beware. Some guys who go like gangbusters when free agency is on the horizon won't necessarily get it done after the money flows.


And, it made me think. Surely, this isn't a ploy by Shanny to light a fire under Warren's behind, is it?

Like they're saying you better play your butt off, or else. Nobody's going to buy your contract and the word is out that you go soft when your wallet gets bigger.

Nothing surprises me anymore with this stuff, and I'm not wholly in doubt that a trade is in the works, but it just seems a little fishy to me with the reports of how well he's done in camp and all...

TheWookieeBronco
08-14-2007, 09:20 AM
I read the following on PFT this morning...



And, it made me think. Surely, this isn't a ploy by Shanny to light a fire under Warren's behind, is it?

Like they're saying you better play your butt off, or else. Nobody's going to buy your contract and the word is out that you go soft when your wallet gets bigger.

Nothing surprises me anymore with this stuff, and I'm not wholly in doubt that a trade is in the works, but it just seems a little fishy to me with the reports of how well he's done in camp and all...

Very good point.

This could be a possibility. I really don't know where we would trade Warren to this late on unless it was for a draft pick and I don't think Shanahan wants ONLY a draft pick. You could be right Mount N Groan, we will have to just wait and see. The problem is Warren strikes me as the kind of guy who will get all upset with the Broncos and go and feel sorry for himself. He doesn't strike me as a fighter, if this is just a plan by Shanahan to get Warren fired up it may have the opposite effect.

Ravage!!!
08-14-2007, 09:31 AM
See that's the point: All of the Broncos D-lineman are run-of-the-mill. All of them!

Dumping one guy because they think he could be playing better doesn't change the fact that the guys behind him are even more useless.

The Broncos strategy this year seemed to be to throw numbers at the opponents in waves because there sure as hell isn't any Jamal Williams' on this team.

Like I said, I just hope they have a plan because this doesn't improve the team....

oh? how do you know that? how do you know what the coaches are seeing, and knowing, as a need enough to trade warren for? You haven't even seen what the trade is yet.

stnzed
08-14-2007, 09:45 AM
oh? how do you know that? how do you know what the coaches are seeing, and knowing, as a need enough to trade warren for? You haven't even seen what the trade is yet.

Like the post said, Rav, "I hope there is a plan".....Meaning, just like you said, I don't know what the plan is. I just hope it's enough to offset the loss of a starter.


And btw, are you confident that moving Warren is a good thing considering his back ups? Gordon? McKinley? Kennedy? Veal?

arapaho
08-14-2007, 09:49 AM
See that's the point: All of the Broncos D-lineman are run-of-the-mill. All of them!

Dumping one guy because they think he could be playing better doesn't change the fact that the guys behind him are even more useless.

The Broncos strategy this year seemed to be to throw numbers at the opponents in waves because there sure as hell isn't any Jamal Williams' on this team.

Like I said, I just hope they have a plan because this doesn't improve the team....


for once i kinda agree with you...warren was by far our best DL and by a lot our best all around DT, because we got adams for a year doesnt mean squat...the purpose of adams was to give warren support from the other dt position that was very weak last year...now to dump him for players below his abilities doesnt make sense, and i fail to se how it will improve the line

JerryD3430
08-14-2007, 10:08 AM
Now I have stuck up for Gerrard Warren in the past saying that he was not the problem with the defense last year, and I am not saying that now, but at some point you have to wonder how much of a motor this guy has.

There is no question that since Warren got paid he has declined in his performance. Now whether you blamed that on his turf toe injury last year or the fact that Larry Coyer's scheme and his DT partner Michael Myers just weren't up to snuff is irrelivant now, because he got a new chance and is healthy now and is about to be out the door.

I think it has become obvious this off-season that Shanahan and Jim Bates have decided to weed out the problem areas that plagued this defense last year and replace it with what Bates wants. I mean the LB play and tackling was awful last year and look we have a new MLB replacing a guy that was thought of way more than his play warranted on the field in Al Wilson and will have a new OLB to cover for DJ moving over. We have an abundance of new DL to replace the old unit that could not provide pressure or be tough against the run. And we went out and got another top flight CB, which I believe Shanahan would have done regardless of the passing of D-Will, to sure up our pass defense.

This defense has gotten a complete facelift and all of it reflects Jim Bates' philosophy. Every defensive move has Bates' stamp all over it, thus it should come as no suprise that a lot of holdover Bronco defenders are in jepoardy of losing their job like Wilson and Warren. I mean our leading sacker from last season Elvis Dumervil is buried on the depth chart and fighting for his job. This is a new day and I think Warren is just the first of many moves the Broncos will make regarding defenders from the old regime of Coyer.

Cugel
08-14-2007, 10:26 AM
I'm not really "excited" by his release, it's more of just the realization of what I thought would happen. I would have been more excited had Warren played up to his contract.

I guarantee you that Warren facilitated this trade/release. He's been running with the 1st team most of camp, and now he's dropped. I believe he whined about the scheme and sealed his ticket out of town. I don't believe the Broncos wanted to cut him originally, but I think the signing of Adams and the relatively solid play of Kennedy made it so the team did not have to put up with his BS. He was a cancer in Cleveland when asked to clog, and he likely would be a cancer here. I dont think the Broncos have much choice.

Plus, I think we can fleece a 4th rounder from the Colts. I'm not sure a team has ever needed a DT as bad as they do, I can't imagine they take the risk that we release him and he signs elsewhere. The only thing which may hold them up is the recent fiasco with another vastly similar player in Corey Simon. The idea of trading Warren to the Bucs for Micheal Clayton makes sense too since Clayton is a 4th string WR at the moment and in danger of being cut.

I'd rather have a 4th rounder though. I love 4th rounders. You get an entire night to research which players slipped out of the first day, and the 4th is where alot of the high risk/high reward players get drafted (like Thomas or Micheal Bush). Those guys are always fun to take a flier on.

Finally, don't sell McKinley short. He's very good, kind of an odd fit for our team, but he's a very good player if he gets the chance to play. And when the 340lbers break down mid-year, he will.
Obviously you're right and Warren played himself off the team with his attitude. It's just that this leaves a hole on the DL. Warren had more talent than any other DT, other than Adams. He sometimes would rouse himself for a while and make some plays. He had the size to be a success in this system, if he would just shut up and do his job!

Apparently that was too much to ask. But, my point remains: who exactly behind him is going to be any good?

I'm not at all excited by Alvin McKinley. He doesn't have the size to be an immovable force in the middle in Bates' system like Sam Adams. At best he's a mediocre temporary substitute for this season and next year the Broncos will have to find at least 2 starting DTs either through the draft or via FA.

Probably the DT with the most potential is Thomas, but he's also the most raw rookie on the team and not ready to start -- which is why he was practicing third on the depth chart behind Amon Gordon and coming in on third downs to try and put pressure up the middle. He's 315 and has the size to be a 2-gap DT, but that was NOT his role in Florida. He was a penetrating pass-rush DT and that's what he does best. Only that doesn't really fit the system.

If you look at the Broncos DL right now, they have some decent pass-rush specialists for 3rd downs in Dumervil and Moss with Thomas coming in, but their base defense now has:

1. LDT - Sam Adams/ Amon Gordon/Alvin McKinley. Gordon or McKinley will have to play at least 1/2 the time, because Adams can't play a full game, and probably not a full season either. His knees are about shot. They have to baby him and keep him out of practices and ice up his knees after every series -- all in hopes of having him around in November and December when the team is playing for the playoffs. Whether even that will be enough is questionable. I doubt he lasts the season.

So, both McKinley AND Gordon are essentially the starting DTs!

Then there's Crowder, who has played some LDE and sometimes inside at DT. But, he's too light to do that much at 275.

Jimmy Kennedy is another Warren. He played himself out of St. Louis because he couldn't/wouldn't clog. He wanted to rush the passer and wasn't strong against the run. The Rams got tired of his attitude and shipped him out just as Warren is being shipped out.

What I don't understand is that the roster seems filled with guys who are similar to Warren. They have pretensions of rushing the passer, whether they can or not, and don't like to play or can't successfully hold their own in 2-gap systems. They are too small and light to demand double-teams, freeing up OT/OGs to get to the LBs.

It's nice that the Broncos added Moss, Crowder and Thomas this year, but it will take a couple of seasons for them to develop. As for this year, I don't see how the underachieving scrubs on this DT are going to be able to do the job.

And no Kennedy and McKinley don't inspire me with any confidence, especially after last night's performance when the 49ers -- minus their star RB still piled up nearly 150 yards on them!

I'd say Bates is going to have to compromise his defensive system this year to accommodate the fact that he doesn't have the players he needs yet on DL, other than an aging Sam Adams.

Boy! could the Broncos ever use a Vince Wilfork around now.

Max Power
08-14-2007, 10:27 AM
I wouldn't expect anything more than a 6th round pick in any possible Warren trade. I think Denver would gladly settling for getting a 6th round pick to make up for the one they lost in the Kennedy trade. So in essence, the trade would essentially be Warren for Kennedy, which is a wash IMO.

xianman1
08-14-2007, 11:07 AM
I kn ow i'm new, but I am surprised that no one has said that they think this move might be made to clear a spot for Simeon Rice to come in. Wasn't Shannahan all about him for a while. Just a thought

stnzed
08-14-2007, 11:17 AM
I kn ow i'm new, but I am surprised that no one has said that they think this move might be made to clear a spot for Simeon Rice to come in. Wasn't Shannahan all about him for a while. Just a thought


But Warren doesn't make that much money! I'm not sure exactly how much he's due this year, but he did take a huge paycut...Or restructure! :D

And if you're just talking about clearing a roster spot, Rice could take any number of guy's spots.

Shanahan has never been about Simeon Rice, he could've signed Rice after his contract with the Cards ran out just like the Bucs. But Shanahan either chose to ignore him, or chose to ignore the pass rush problem.

Rice's first contract with the Bucs wasn't exactly player friendly, it was a one year contract with zero guarantees. Any other team could've had him if they wanted.

Maybe Shanahan just didn't want him.....

JRWIZ
08-14-2007, 11:30 AM
Trading/cutting Warren doesn't make sense to me either.

Warren is easily better than Gordon and Veal, and getting rid of him furthur weakens a defense that got pushed around fairly easy tonight.

The bottom line is that the DL is still a major issue, though it is just the 1st week of preseason. Shanahan just cannot figure it out, and imo, he may never figure it out.

Since the SB years he's tried everything and failed, and now he's gonna to try going into the season with the possibility of players like McKinley/Gordon/Veal being counted on. Not to mention Kennedy, who doesn't seem to be any better than Warren.

I find it hard to believe that this great coaching staff can't their money's worth out of Warren, at least for this year, like you said.....And considering whats left on the shelf, trading/cutting him will be incredibly stupid.

I know this has Dream and MUG excited, but that doesn't make this move any less stupid.

There had better be a plan, because this in/of itself isn't making the Broncos a better team.

And if MCKinley is in fact the best DT by years end, the Broncos are screwed....

I totally agree with you and Cugel on this.

While I do not think warren is all that great he is a warm body and until we get one warmer than he is it is time to keep him on the shelve. If for not other reason than light rotation and insurance for when the big guy gets hurt.

Someone had mentioned that mikey has tried a lot of options on the DL but anyone that has looked at these moves with more than blind eye, knows none of them were good moves to start with. The last decent move was price in the draft 1997, then he overpaid the lazy putz, so he got fat and lazy.

Mikey is always hoping to find another TD (Diamond in the rough) in the pile of garbage he brings into cull through.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-14-2007, 12:19 PM
Keep in mind here that all Warren was in this defense is a 2 down run clogger. Ekuban moves in to DT on passing downs and is paired with a more traditional "Under Tackle" type, which looks to be Veal or McKinley at this point.

Jimmy Kennedy looks to be able to fill Warren's shoes for that 2 down run stuffer, and if he can't, I'm sure Amon Gordon can. It's not that hard to find a quality fat guy that just stands up his blockers. The problem with Warren is that he throws a temper tantrum when he's relegated to that role.

This trade/release is more about not having to listen to Warren cry and moan all season for being misused, then it is for him not fitting the system. In the end though, he doesn't fit the system, at least not mentally.

gyldenlove
08-14-2007, 12:40 PM
You people need to get a grip! I go insane if people keep yapping on about Kennedy! The ENTIRE reason the Rams unloaded Kennedy for a 6th rounder is that he ISN'T a gap runstuffer! They tried to make him into one but it just doesn't work so stop saying that!

I love that "if he can't, I am sure someone else can" if someone else could, they would have! Warren took snaps with the first team D in camp, not Gordon. Warren started last year, not Gordon. Warren got snubbed for the pro bowl in 2005, nobody even knew Gordon or Burton existed then. If someone else could, we would have someone else.

If some of you feel you need to justify everything as "the right move" then write it in your blogs or diary. Fact is that Warren has proven he can be a good DT in the NFL and be effective against the run. Except for Adams who can't play all snaps NOBODY else on our roster has shown they can do that consistently.

I think keeping Warren and Adams together until Thomas is ready to take over some time down the stretch is the right move, Warren is only about 850k this year which is a bargain. If we keep him until next year we can designate him a june 1st cut and get some cap relief that way.

ballen
08-14-2007, 12:50 PM
You people need to get a grip! I go insane if people keep yapping on about Kennedy! The ENTIRE reason the Rams unloaded Kennedy for a 6th rounder is that he ISN'T a gap runstuffer! They tried to make him into one but it just doesn't work so stop saying that!

I love that "if he can't, I am sure someone else can" if someone else could, they would have! Warren took snaps with the first team D in camp, not Gordon. Warren started last year, not Gordon. Warren got snubbed for the pro bowl in 2005, nobody even knew Gordon or Burton existed then. If someone else could, we would have someone else.

If some of you feel you need to justify everything as "the right move" then write it in your blogs or diary. Fact is that Warren has proven he can be a good DT in the NFL and be effective against the run. Except for Adams who can't play all snaps NOBODY else on our roster has shown they can do that consistently.

I think keeping Warren and Adams together until Thomas is ready to take over some time down the stretch is the right move, Warren is only about 850k this year which is a bargain. If we keep him until next year we can designate him a june 1st cut and get some cap relief that way.

I'm with you man, I just don't see the point of trading or cutting him now. Especially for a draft pick. Cut or trade him after the season. From the way things looked last night, we need him. Nobody ran like that on us last year. I know it's pre season but that was awful.

Sam_Z
08-14-2007, 12:55 PM
Keep in mind here that all Warren was in this defense is a 2 down run clogger. Ekuban moves in to DT on passing downs and is paired with a more traditional "Under Tackle" type, which looks to be Veal or McKinley at this point.

Jimmy Kennedy looks to be able to fill Warren's shoes for that 2 down run stuffer, and if he can't, I'm sure Amon Gordon can. It's not that hard to find a quality fat guy that just stands up his blockers. The problem with Warren is that he throws a temper tantrum when he's relegated to that role.

This trade/release is more about not having to listen to Warren cry and moan all season for being misused, then it is for him not fitting the system. In the end though, he doesn't fit the system, at least not mentally.

I agree and very well put, I didnt think anyone had really noticed Ekuban replacing Warren on passing because no ever mentioned it before.

Warren is eating up a very big chunk of the salary cap when we are better off with a cheaper big body like Kennedy.
Im not sure how much of a cap hit will take with trading him but Im sure Shanny and the boys have it all under control.

BroncoFanCanada
08-14-2007, 01:12 PM
When I first heard about this yesterday, I wasn't exactly in favour of it. But, the more I think about it, the more I've come to accept it as good news, rather than bad. If all the guys we broguth in (specifically, Kennedy and Thomas) were sucking it up in camp, they probably wouldn't want to make this move. They're obviously not.

Also - I'm in agreement that the Colts would need a DT and would probably pay a good price for him. I'm not worried about that trade biting us in the ass, either. Warren isn't a difference maker, as we've all seen over the past two seasons.

xX-Bronco-Xx
08-14-2007, 01:17 PM
Sorry for being lazy but I'm not going to read through all 10 pages to find out but what are we supposedly getting if we did trade Warren?

I'd figure some draft picks or even a player but I honestly have no clue.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-14-2007, 01:36 PM
I'm with you man, I just don't see the point of trading or cutting him now. Especially for a draft pick. Cut or trade him after the season. From the way things looked last night, we need him. Nobody ran like that on us last year. I know it's pre season but that was awful.


First, the 49ers ran on us like that last year. Second, the 49ers have quite possibly the best and deepest O-line in the entire NFL, with only the Eagles or Jaguars giving them a run. They are certainly in the Top 3. They are going to run on people, just like we do, it doesn't matter which RB they have back there. Trust me on this, David Baas or Larry Allen would pick Warren up and drop him on his head, both are bigger then Warren, very athletic, and ungodly strong. There's a reason Frank Gore might get 2k yards, and its not Gore's talent.


The good news is that we don't play many of the top O-line teams, basically just SDx2, Chicago, and Jax, and only Jax compares to SF.

Lets not overlook how good and how deep the 49ers are on the O-line here.

Morambar
08-14-2007, 01:56 PM
What I don't understand is that the roster seems filled with guys who are similar to Warren. They have pretensions of rushing the passer, whether they can or not, and don't like to play or can't successfully hold their own in 2-gap systems. They are too small and light to demand double-teams, freeing up OT/OGs to get to the LBs.
Precisely my concern, and in fact I'm a little puzzled by the moves we've made at DT in light of Bates' philosophy. In both the draft and free agency we went after guys like Warren, with the exception of Sam Adams, who can only be a temporary stop gap at best. The main difference between Warren and the other guys is that he at least has the size to be a clogger even if he didn't enjoy it. So now we're looking at a line with Sam Adams on his last legs (literally) playing next two and backed by would be pass rushers all around 300 lbs. and it looks increasingly like the only returning starter from last year will be Ebenezer Ekuban. I frankly don't know WHAT'S going on in our coaches minds at DT....

BroncodogPG
08-14-2007, 02:11 PM
Okay.....the coaches are really throwing me off now i thought afetr all that monet we gave Warren we would at least keep him for about 2or 3 years more, more cap problems....its like they never end for us man, well like always i trust in the coaches and i hope they can get the line better.

arapaho
08-14-2007, 02:16 PM
theres something that keeps nagging at me.....the fact that everything and everyone keeps saying we want a stand up the block DT,, a gap filler...and we hve guys that want to pass rush

but i cannot figure out why we dont want our DTs to crush that damm pocket and flush that qb into the de's comeing fromn the side

i seen enough of the dt's merely holding the line while the qb surveys the field...i thought thats why we got rid of coyer:confused:

gyldenlove
08-14-2007, 02:29 PM
theres something that keeps nagging at me.....the fact that everything and everyone keeps saying we want a stand up the block DT,, a gap filler...and we hve guys that want to pass rush

but i cannot figure out why we dont want our DTs to crush that damm pocket and flush that qb into the de's comeing fromn the side

i seen enough of the dt's merely holding the line while the qb surveys the field...i thought thats why we got rid of coyer:confused:

That is easy, if you do that people will run on all day long like they did the Colts last year. Sure, if you have Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne you might be okay, but lets face it, not many teams do.

When you line up the ends wide and let them pursue aggressively like we do now, you need someone to clog up the middle so your linebackers only have to fight off a fullback or tight end, not a guard.

columbiaskinny
08-14-2007, 02:38 PM
Sunday, April 8, 2007

Bill Johnson: 'Another Door Opens'

Defensive line coach Bill Johnson plans to institute a one-gap philosophy into the Broncos' defense.

By Andrew Mason
DenverBroncos.com

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Before January, Bill Johnson had never gone job-hunting with NFL experience on his résumé.

The coaching lifer had worked his way up through a thicket of college jobs -- including three at various schools in Louisiana -- before landing with the Atlanta Falcons in 2001. In the six seasons that followed, he helped mold Rod Williams and Patrick Kerney into a formidable pair of linemen while being a common thread under three head coaches: Dan Reeves, Wade Phillips (on an interim basis in 2003) and Jim Mora.

But when Mora was dismissed three months ago, so too was Johnson.

He didn't sit on the market long.

"Sometimes when a door shuts, a bigger one opens," he said.

"I can't tell you how excited I am from being in Atlanta to being in Denver because of the prospects of being successful here. Change is good sometimes, and I'm looking forward to it."

The river of change flows in both directions. Johnson has a fleet of new proteges to which he must become accustomed, and they will have the task of adapting to a one-gap defensive-line scheme.

"We're going to be a team that will line up and play one gap and not move the front a whole lot and just play one-gap, control defense," Johnson said. "That would be the difference".

"I think the system will be different and now from the setup of how (assistant head) Coach (Jim) Bates will do things and the philosophy of how defenses are called. Our job as defensive line coaches is to work our guys and get them in the framework of that defense and that philosophy.

"I think it's going to be an easy sell and I think it's going to be successful."

But the sack total will not be the only determinant of success.

"Everybody thinks that pressure on the quarterback is a sack, but disruption to the quarterback is (as well)," Johnson said. "If you study what (Bates') schemes have done with a Jason Taylor and an Aaron Kampman in Green Bay, you see that those things jump up."

It certainly made starting defensive end Kenard Lang sit up and take notice.

"With this scheme that's coming in, I'm not going to set a goal (for sacks)," he said, "but I feel like we're all going to do real well and reach our personal goals, not only with the team, but as far as reaching Super Bowls."

And one of the men who could make that possible also represents one of the more intriguing case studies up front -- defensive end Elvis Dumervil.

In 2006, Dumervil came off the bench to become the Broncos' leading sacker in his rookie season. The team worked him at tackle in the months leading up to his rookie season, but his in-game work was almost exclusively at end.

"He was interesting to me," Johnson said. "I studied him out of college, and in my mind, I was anxious to see how he was going to do in the NFL.

"He shows good flashes. He understands how to pass rush. He's got long arms; he knows to use them, and I think he's going to be a valuable guy -- especially on third down."

Using Dumervil, Lang and the other defensive linemen well is Johnson's job.

"I think they play hard, I really do. Some years you have more production than other years,' Johnson said, "but I think we have a great nucleus to work with, I really do."

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=6685
___________________________

As was seen last night.

arapaho
08-14-2007, 02:48 PM
That is easy, if you do that people will run on all day long like they did the Colts last year. Sure, if you have Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne you might be okay, but lets face it, not many teams do.

When you line up the ends wide and let them pursue aggressively like we do now, you need someone to clog up the middle so your linebackers only have to fight off a fullback or tight end, not a guard.


i didntt know peyton and marvin played defense?

what i seen last night is excactly what i seen in the last ttwo years,, dts standing up, lbrs dropping back, and the qb having all day to throw, mainly the drop off which as last year were totaly uncovered

the point of haveing a good linebacker corps is to stop the run...our philosophy should be to crush the pocket, put on huge qb pressure and let the lb's handle the run

JRWIZ
08-14-2007, 02:50 PM
Sunday, April 8, 2007

Bill Johnson: 'Another Door Opens'

Defensive line coach Bill Johnson plans to institute a one-gap philosophy into the Broncos' defense.

By Andrew Mason
DenverBroncos.com

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Before January, Bill Johnson had never gone job-hunting with NFL experience on his résumé.

The coaching lifer had worked his way up through a thicket of college jobs -- including three at various schools in Louisiana -- before landing with the Atlanta Falcons in 2001. In the six seasons that followed, he helped mold Rod Williams and Patrick Kerney into a formidable pair of linemen while being a common thread under three head coaches: Dan Reeves, Wade Phillips (on an interim basis in 2003) and Jim Mora.

But when Mora was dismissed three months ago, so too was Johnson.

He didn't sit on the market long.

"Sometimes when a door shuts, a bigger one opens," he said.

"I can't tell you how excited I am from being in Atlanta to being in Denver because of the prospects of being successful here. Change is good sometimes, and I'm looking forward to it."

The river of change flows in both directions. Johnson has a fleet of new proteges to which he must become accustomed, and they will have the task of adapting to a one-gap defensive-line scheme.

"We're going to be a team that will line up and play one gap and not move the front a whole lot and just play one-gap, control defense," Johnson said. "That would be the difference".

"I think the system will be different and now from the setup of how (assistant head) Coach (Jim) Bates will do things and the philosophy of how defenses are called. Our job as defensive line coaches is to work our guys and get them in the framework of that defense and that philosophy.

"I think it's going to be an easy sell and I think it's going to be successful."

But the sack total will not be the only determinant of success.

"Everybody thinks that pressure on the quarterback is a sack, but disruption to the quarterback is (as well)," Johnson said. "If you study what (Bates') schemes have done with a Jason Taylor and an Aaron Kampman in Green Bay, you see that those things jump up."

It certainly made starting defensive end Kenard Lang sit up and take notice.

"With this scheme that's coming in, I'm not going to set a goal (for sacks)," he said, "but I feel like we're all going to do real well and reach our personal goals, not only with the team, but as far as reaching Super Bowls."

And one of the men who could make that possible also represents one of the more intriguing case studies up front -- defensive end Elvis Dumervil.

In 2006, Dumervil came off the bench to become the Broncos' leading sacker in his rookie season. The team worked him at tackle in the months leading up to his rookie season, but his in-game work was almost exclusively at end.

"He was interesting to me," Johnson said. "I studied him out of college, and in my mind, I was anxious to see how he was going to do in the NFL.

"He shows good flashes. He understands how to pass rush. He's got long arms; he knows to use them, and I think he's going to be a valuable guy -- especially on third down."

Using Dumervil, Lang and the other defensive linemen well is Johnson's job.

"I think they play hard, I really do. Some years you have more production than other years,' Johnson said, "but I think we have a great nucleus to work with, I really do."

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=6685
___________________________

As was seen last night.

If that is the case,


WEBE in big DODO!!.

TXBRONC
08-14-2007, 03:53 PM
Precisely my concern, and in fact I'm a little puzzled by the moves we've made at DT in light of Bates' philosophy. In both the draft and free agency we went after guys like Warren, with the exception of Sam Adams, who can only be a temporary stop gap at best. The main difference between Warren and the other guys is that he at least has the size to be a clogger even if he didn't enjoy it. So now we're looking at a line with Sam Adams on his last legs (literally) playing next two and backed by would be pass rushers all around 300 lbs. and it looks increasingly like the only returning starter from last year will be Ebenezer Ekuban. I frankly don't know WHAT'S going on in our coaches minds at DT....

While Shanahan has the final say on every player that is brought in, he still listens to his coaches. I have no doubt that before Kennedy, McKinley, Thomas, Adams and so forth were brought in Bates gave Shanahan his best assesment of each player.

stnzed
08-14-2007, 04:40 PM
I agree and very well put, I didnt think anyone had really noticed Ekuban replacing Warren on passing because no ever mentioned it before.

Warren is eating up a very big chunk of the salary cap when we are better off with a cheaper big body like Kennedy.
Im not sure how much of a cap hit will take with trading him but Im sure Shanny and the boys have it all under control.

Yeah right! We didn't mention it, not because we didn't notice it, but because it's a given that we're talking about Warren as a run-stuffing 2down player. Warren is the one who thinks he's a pass rusher, not us.

And if Ekuban is Warren's sub in pass defense packages, someone please tell me what the heck Demetrin Veal is for? :D

Maybe he's another world-class buttocks kisser.

And for what it's worth, Warren is/was due to make less than one million this year, Sam....

WABronco
08-14-2007, 07:56 PM
Bill Johnson: 'Another Door Opens'

Defensive line coach Bill Johnson plans to institute a one-gap philosophy into the Broncos' defense.

That isn't accurate. Either Johnson mis-spoke for an entire interview or he didn't see the entire picture early on...or something.


Assistant head coach/defense Jim Bates wants his defensive tackles to engage the blocker in front of them, anchor and cover the two gaps on each side of the blocker. Warren has traditionally preferred to pick a gap and be a get-up-the-field player looking to penetrate rather than anchor.

The result has been Warren, according to some in the Broncos organization, has been slower to adapt to Bates' scheme. Bates' desire for more beef in the middle is also why the Broncos traded for Kennedy in July, why Sam Adams was signed and why Amon Gordon has moved up the depth chart when he did not under former coordinator Larry Coyer.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/article/0,2777,DRMN_23918_5672840,00.html

Bates runs a two gapping DL. Always has.

For those of you that think the Kennedy acquisition is a farce because of his desire to play a one-gap style, well, this is just another garbage swap. That's it. We are experimenting and trying to convert some really bad garbage into a usable resource. It's the whole "change of scenery" thing all over again.

Amon Gordon was drafted by a 3-4 team as a two-gap player, and now he finds himself at the top of the depth chart. Sam Adams is a prototypical two-gap player. McKinley has experience in a two-gap system. Demetrin Veal, a primary player in last year's rotation, is now fourth string because of the shift in defensive philosophy. And now Warren's on his way out because he's a poor two-gap player, evidently.

rcsodak
08-14-2007, 09:07 PM
I agree and very well put, I didnt think anyone had really noticed Ekuban replacing Warren on passing because no ever mentioned it before.

Warren is eating up a very big chunk of the salary cap when we are better off with a cheaper big body like Kennedy.
Im not sure how much of a cap hit will take with trading him but Im sure Shanny and the boys have it all under control.

Warren't only making $595k this year....and is scheduled to make $4MILL Next year. So other than his prorated bonus *??*, he's NOT that big of hit on the cap. If he is cut, it'll be spread out over this/next year, but I'm sure Shanny would rather receive something for him. It's not like he's a bad player...he just doesn't fit the new scheme.
I don't know why Bates just doesn't make some adjustments and keep Warren around this year. After seeing SF run amok, it looked like the Dline was totally lost, and playing individually, instead of as a team. That's the worst I've seen in a Looooooong time.

columbiaskinny
08-14-2007, 09:13 PM
That isn't accurate. Either Johnson mis-spoke for an entire interview or he didn't see the entire picture early on...or something.Could be. Somethings up.

Bates runs a two gapping DL. Always has.Not exactly.

The same scheme, which by the way is all Jimmy Johnsons philosophy really, it's what he wanted in a defense, that Bates runs now is the same one Dave Wannstedt and Jimmy Johnson ran at the university of Miami where Wannstadt was the D-coord.

Here are some quotes from an article on Bates, based on his schemes roots...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050127/ai_n11007342


"Wannstedt, his boss as the Dolphins' head coach during 4 1/2 of the last five seasons, regards Bates as one of the National Football League's top 10 coordinators after his work with essentially the same scheme that helped Johnson claim one national championship and a pair of No. 2 poll finishes at the University of Miami in the 1980sThe same scheme went with Wannstedt and JJ when they took over in Dallas.

Bates learned the defense that he runs now, from Wannstedt.


"Nevertheless, Bates knows this simplistic, disciplined, speed- oriented defense inside and out after having spent the last nine seasons coaching it under two of Johnson's disciples, Dave Campo in Dallas and Dave Wannstedt in Miami."Dave Wannstedt...
"I know the defense that Jim's going to run is the defense that we put in in Dallas," Wannstedt said Tuesday. "The reason I hired him was his familiarity with the defense because I didn't want to change anything. It was really a good fit and Jim did a great job. And Jim will do a great job there."

A discription of that very defense...
"The essence of Johnson's philosophy was speed, speed and more speed. He wanted waves of penetrating defensive linemen to fit a one- gap scheme and rotate constantly. He wanted fast linebackers regardless of size. And he wanted smart defensive backs that wouldn't make mistakes in a "quarters" or Cover 2 coverage scheme."A little more detail as to how the DTs line up...
Johnson's system started with a 4-3 "over" front in which the under, or three-technique, defensive tackle lined up to the tight- end side and all three linebackers were stacked off the ball.

Awhile back something like this came up and i brought this up when Kennedy was traded for. Wondering if Bates changed his scheme and i missed it.

I may still have missed it. But the article i just quoted is hard to not take serious. It has me sold do to the direct quotes from Wannstedt himself. As well as the quote from the new D-line coach Bill Johnson on what the DTs will be doing.

I don't know WA, i'm a bit confused on the matter myself and have been ever since Kennedy signed.

I could be totally wrong in thinking this, which i have no problem with, and i honestly wish i could get a very influentional* answer on the matter.


Amon Gordon was drafted by a 3-4 team as a two-gap player, Majority of your 3-4 defenses play 2 gap schemes. Remember also, Gordon was brought here by his former D-line coach in Cleve. Patterson last year who coaches a 2-gap scheme.
Sam Adams is a prototypical two-gap player.Bill Johnson, the same "one gap" coach, coached Adams at Texas A&M in college. lol, besides, Adams can play either or when it comes to gaps.
McKinley has experience in a two-gap system.True, Cleveland runs the 3-4 where he played DE.
Demetrin Veal, a primary player in last year's rotation, is now fourth string because of the shift in defensive philosophy.Veal was also drafted by the Falcons where Bill"one gap"Johnson was the D-line coach. You draft players that should fit your scheme.
And now Warren's on his way out because he's a poor two-gap player, evidently.And evidently, maybe, an even poorer one gap player.

:confused:

Snk16
08-14-2007, 09:15 PM
Seems Warren was one of our best D-LInemen as of late. I felt he was underutilized. Wonder what kind of interest we'll get. Hopefully we get some draft picks.

Sam_Z
08-14-2007, 09:23 PM
Yeah right! We didn't mention it, not because we didn't notice it, but because it's a given that we're talking about Warren as a run-stuffing 2down player. Warren is the one who thinks he's a pass rusher, not us.

And if Ekuban is Warren's sub in pass defense packages, someone please tell me what the heck Demetrin Veal is for? :D

Maybe he's another world-class a$$ kisser.

And for what it's worth, Warren is/was due to make less than one million this year, Sam....

Goodness Gracious do we have to put everything out there in laymens terms?
Of course he's not making much now but he will be in the next few years and thats why they are trying to ship him out now.

But when you think about it who gonna want to pick up a guy thats schd. to make 4million in 08. Unless he's willing to restructure for whatever team willing to trade for him, they'll probably just release him before the end of the preseason.

Nbot
08-14-2007, 09:29 PM
my .02...

SanFran ran way too much on us, and had way too many dump off passes, felt like last year all over again.

I was expecting Warren to shore up the DT w/ Adams...

I'm confused why the team expects to be better w/o Warren....for all the talk about Bates run-stopping scheme I wasn't impressed....here's to hoping its all going to work out and the guy that started at tackle that I hadn't even noticed on the depth charts before Monday night (!) will make sense at some time....

Johnny Boy
08-15-2007, 10:42 AM
In my humble opinion ....

Why not Warren ... and for that matter who else is on the way out ... We still have to trim down to a 55 man roster, and we have a lot of bodies on the D-line ....

In Shanny we trust .... cuz we have no choice :cheers:

Ravage!!!
08-15-2007, 11:35 AM
In my humble opinion ....

Why not Warren ... and for that matter who else is on the way out ... We still have to trim down to a 55 man roster, and we have a lot of bodies on the D-line ....

In Shanny we trust .... cuz we have no choice :cheers:

THEN.. we have to trim it down to a 53 man roster !

Blitzin'inCO007
08-15-2007, 12:19 PM
What do you expect from a former Brown? Send him packin'!!

Blitzin'inCO007
08-15-2007, 12:22 PM
http://www.gerardwarren.com/

Nuff said........He's gotta go. And he needs to fire his webpage designer as well.

JRWIZ
08-15-2007, 12:31 PM
http://www.gerardwarren.com/

Nuff said........He's gotta go. And he needs to fire his webpage designer as well.


amen brother I'm out of points or you'd get one for this

underrated29
08-15-2007, 12:42 PM
amen brother I'm out of points or you'd get one for this

i got ur back on this one jr.

TXBRONC
08-15-2007, 01:06 PM
In my humble opinion ....

Why not Warren ... and for that matter who else is on the way out ... We still have to trim down to a 55 man roster, and we have a lot of bodies on the D-line ....

In Shanny we trust .... cuz we have no choice :cheers:

Trimming down to 53 is still aways off.

JRWIZ
08-15-2007, 01:14 PM
i got ur back on this one jr.


thank you very much!!!!!!!

JRWIZ
08-15-2007, 01:15 PM
Trimming down to 53 is still aways off.

think your correct 3 or more weeks away.

Max Power
08-15-2007, 01:41 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_6617034

Johnny Boy
08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
ok ... sorry I meant 53 man roster ...

All I am saying is, there are a lot of guys at the position, he either doesn't want to contribute or is otherwise incapable of doing so. Lets not cry over spilt milk and ship him out while we may still be able to retain some worth. His pay for this year should be inticing to an interested team who may just want him for a year. Ultimately, there will be a few more D-lineman packing their bags here shortly, don't we also have a D-Lineman who is in the mix for the starting spot that needs to serve a 4 game suspension? Remember what happened with Sauerbraun!!

Lets get Warren outta here, get something for our time and energy and let some guys compete for the spot.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
Today is was reported that Denver were trying to shop Warren to the Titans here is the link



http://www.kffl.com/team/15/nfl

Max Power
08-15-2007, 01:58 PM
Today is was reported that Denver were trying to shop Warren to the Titans here is the link



http://www.kffl.com/team/15/nfl


Trade him for Pacman Jones!

Just kidding.

Or am I?

:P

ballen
08-15-2007, 02:42 PM
Trade him for Pacman Jones!

Just kidding.

Or am I?

:P


Yes, you are kidding.

Morambar
08-16-2007, 02:53 AM
Well, in light of that from KFFL, the lead story on the Titans at NFL.com right now is a two man fight between Ryan Fowler and sophomore Stephen Tulloch for the MLB start, though since Fowler was a FA acquisition from Dallas it seems unlikely they'd part with him (why pay a guy more money and then trade him to another team?) Needless to say, I'm still holding out for a quality and versatile LB if the trade talks materialize, someone on the mold of what Sundquist said Holdman was, a guy who can play all three spots (though I'd be willing to be lax on Will duties for a guy who can play well at Sam and Mike).

Pickings look slim in that department for Tennessee though, unless they're willing to ship Tulloch, Fowler or Bullock, and I doubt they are since two of those three will be starting and the third likely their backup MLB.

ChampWJ
08-17-2007, 11:22 AM
Just bumping this to see if anyone has news on Gerard yet.

Bryceleo
08-17-2007, 11:51 AM
Come on now the most we are going to get for him is a draft pick. 3rd round or so. Just depends on who were are trying to get it from!!!

socalorado1
08-17-2007, 12:51 PM
Come on now the most we are going to get for him is a draft pick. 3rd round or so. Just depends on who were are trying to get it from!!!

A 3RD ROUND PICK!!! JEEZ, If the Broncos get a 3rd, then that will be a major steal!!

cutlerfan
08-17-2007, 02:07 PM
Warren suitors play waiting game
<Aug. 17> As of Thursday night, the Broncos still had not completed a trade of Warren, the six-year veteran whose playing style makes him a poor fit for the two-gap techniques preferred by new defensive coordinator Jim Bates, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports.
The Denver front office is split over whether to swap Warren this early in the preseason. The few teams interested in Warren are willing to gamble that Denver will simply release him if it doesn't meet a buyer to match its asking price.

The Redskins, who have conducted plenty of trade business with the Broncos over the past 3˝ years, head the list of teams waiting to sign Warren if he becomes free.

columbiaskinny
08-17-2007, 02:18 PM
No trade market for Bronco
Posted: Friday August 17, 2007
While on their weeklong, two-city preseason trip to San Francisco and the Cowboys' complex, the Broncos kept Gerard Warren in Denver because they were confident of trading him within a day or two. Instead, the Broncos have found virtually no trade market for Warren and it may be another week to 10 days before there is a final resolution. If Warren isn't moved soon, the Broncos may begin to think about keeping him.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nfl?page=2

maruske845
08-17-2007, 02:26 PM
i hope the deal goes through

I don't think he fits with the new system at all

adams and kenndy do

so that what i am thinking


thats my bad post ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

go team tacos!

dogfish
08-17-2007, 02:34 PM
No trade market for Bronco
Posted: Friday August 17, 2007
While on their weeklong, two-city preseason trip to San Francisco and the Cowboys' complex, the Broncos kept Gerard Warren in Denver because they were confident of trading him within a day or two. Instead, the Broncos have found virtually no trade market for Warren and it may be another week to 10 days before there is a final resolution. If Warren isn't moved soon, the Broncos may begin to think about keeping him.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nfl?page=2

personally, i think keeping him is the best idea at this point. . . he's not a great player by any stretch of the imagination, but i don't love our depth at DT. . . for the small amount that he would cost us this year, i'd rather keep him around and ditch him next year-- that at least gives us a chance to see what we've got with guys like jimmy kennedy, possibly burton or gordon, and it gives marcus thomas a year to develop. . . best case scenario, he's motivated by fear of losing his contract (if he dogs it this year, no one is gonna pay him much after we cut him), and gives us a decent season like he did in '05. . . worst case scenario, he's nothing out there but a big, lazy body, so maybe he rides the bench, or we cut him midseason and bring up a guy like burton from the PS to take his roster spot. . .

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-17-2007, 02:34 PM
No trade market for Bronco
Posted: Friday August 17, 2007
While on their weeklong, two-city preseason trip to San Francisco and the Cowboys' complex, the Broncos kept Gerard Warren in Denver because they were confident of trading him within a day or two. Instead, the Broncos have found virtually no trade market for Warren and it may be another week to 10 days before there is a final resolution. If Warren isn't moved soon, the Broncos may begin to think about keeping him.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nfl?page=2
Nice read Skinny i hope we keep Warren for his last season of his contract.Sam Adams and Burton dont impress me at all they move like their feet is stuck in cement shoes.


I hope these guys do better tomorrow against the Cowboys else Warren will be back on a sure note mate :salute:

Javalon
08-17-2007, 02:46 PM
Nice read Skinny i hope we keep Warren for his last season of his contract.Sam Adams and Burton dont impress me at all they move like their feet is stuck in cement shoes.


I hope these guys do better tomorrow against the Cowboys else Warren will be back on a sure note mate :salute:

Actually, we have Warren signed through then end of 2010. Things must be bad to be considering getting rid of him when his bonus money will accelerate onto this and next year's cap.

I think they should tell Warren something like, "Listen, nobody wants to trade for you. Play for us this year and show everybody what you're worth and then we'll cut you next year, if you still want us to." That way he'll play like it's a contract year and we'll get him for the reduced salary. Plus, the salary cap hit will be smaller next year than it will be this year if we cut him.

And there's always the chance the team plays really well (makes a Super Bowl run?) and he decides he can live with our new defensive system.

But cutting him right now would be a mistake. Either get something for him in a trade or keep him this year while his salary is cheap.

Javalon
08-17-2007, 02:48 PM
personally, i think keeping him is the best idea at this point. . . he's not a great player by any stretch of the imagination, but i don't love our depth at DT. . . for the small amount that he would cost us this year, i'd rather keep him around and ditch him next year-- that at least gives us a chance to see what we've got with guys like jimmy kennedy, possibly burton or gordon, and it gives marcus thomas a year to develop. . . best case scenario, he's motivated by fear of losing his contract (if he dogs it this year, no one is gonna pay him much after we cut him), and gives us a decent season like he did in '05. . . worst case scenario, he's nothing out there but a big, lazy body, so maybe he rides the bench, or we cut him midseason and bring up a guy like burton from the PS to take his roster spot. . .

I shouldn't read backwards through a thread because you made many of the same points I just did. :D

I wasn't copying, I swear!!

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-17-2007, 02:52 PM
Actually, we have Warren signed through then end of 2010. Things must be bad to be considering getting rid of him when his bonus money will accelerate onto this and next year's cap.

I think they should tell Warren something like, "Listen, nobody wants to trade for you. Play for us this year and show everybody what you're worth and then we'll cut you next year, if you still want us to." That way he'll play like it's a contract year and we'll get him for the reduced salary. Plus, the salary cap hit will be smaller next year than it will be this year if we cut him.

And there's always the chance the team plays really well (makes a Super Bowl run?) and he decides he can live with our new defensive system.

But cutting him right now would be a mistake. Either get something for him in a trade or keep him this year while his salary is cheap.I agree with every word mate :thumb:

MilitantDBFan
08-17-2007, 03:00 PM
Im sure Mike was smart enough not to burn all the bridges with Warren. You always want to recieve value on a player and cutting him would not achieve that. I think Warren would welcome a limited role with us, seeing as he has ressurrected his career here and has probably started over his life here. I wish Gerrard Warren the best and im sure he is not complaining about getting paid to do nothing, he has made a living on such.

The only thing better than BIG Money is FREE Money:salute:

TXBRONC
08-17-2007, 03:46 PM
I would rather we keep him for the same reasons Jav and Dogfish pointed out.

Dream
08-17-2007, 05:26 PM
One of the things to keep in mind is this.

Warren was the first-team defensive tackle all through mini-camp. All of a sudden the Broncos just want to dump him? Sure, I thought they would - but my guess is that it's Warren possibly facilitating the whole idea. As I mentioned, he has a poor attitude towards playing the position, and what is asked of him here is exactly what he doesn't want to do. He doesn't want to play in a system like this, because it doesn't "fit" what he wants to do.

Simple, I'm pretty confident it's Warren who is being unwilling here. Either that, or the Broncos realized that he wasn't worth a damn penny of what we gave him and have found better options.

Javalon and Dogfish mentioned keeping him around for a few reasons, but you don't want his presence in the locker room. He's been a piss poor sport since he came into the league. Always has been, always will be. I don't care how "cheap" his base salary is this year, you don't put unmotivated fat lards like Warren on the field who don't want to be there in the first place.

Teams obviously know the situation. Denver should try to get SOMETHING for him (I'd take the lowest pick possible.) but teams WON'T give up SOMETHING SPECIAL because they know he can be had for free when the Broncos are forced to cut him because nobody wants him.

We don't even want him, so why would he want to come back to a team who has been shopping him for the past week, regardless if he facilitated the idea (my belief) or not?

Just chalk up another mistake for the Broncos FO when it comes to Warren. Had they actually paid attention to the defensive line for the past several years and not passed up the prime players they could have taken in each draft at the position, we wouldn't be in this 36 million dollar fiasco with Warren. In my time watching the Broncos, (ten years) this has to be one of the top five or so mistakes made.

Ridiculous.

gyldenlove
08-17-2007, 05:40 PM
Come on now Dream, if they had paid attention to the D line and drafted a prime player or two we wouldn't have Cutler and we would still be riding the Jake-train to nowhere.

I agree we need to unload him, after they made the decision to get rid off him and leave him in Denver they went down the path of no return. If no team offers anything we cut him at the 53 man roster deadline.

The one thing this does is make Frank Okam the most likely player for us to draft next year unless Thomas has a break out season and becomes a good starter as a rookie.

Broncosinindy
08-17-2007, 06:00 PM
Come on now Dream, if they had paid attention to the D line and drafted a prime player or two we wouldn't have Cutler and we would still be riding the Jake-train to nowhere.

I agree we need to unload him, after they made the decision to get rid off him and leave him in Denver they went down the path of no return. If no team offers anything we cut him at the 53 man roster deadline.

The one thing this does is make Frank Okam the most likely player for us to draft next year unless Thomas has a break out season and becomes a good starter as a rookie.

Thomas will not play alot this year. i just dont think he does what we do defensivley effectivly that does not mean he wont next year. but this year i think he plays on special teams and Nickel pass rush situations.

I like okam, But i think i would rather go with Dre Moore or one of the other fatties coming out next year that could be available in the second. i am not big on getting a run stuffer DT in the first unless his name is Nagta. i think if we do this we could get a First rounder at OT or a Wideout.

Dream
08-17-2007, 07:00 PM
Come on now Dream, if they had paid attention to the D line and drafted a prime player or two we wouldn't have Cutler and we would still be riding the Jake-train to nowhere.

I agree we need to unload him, after they made the decision to get rid off him and leave him in Denver they went down the path of no return. If no team offers anything we cut him at the 53 man roster deadline.

The one thing this does is make Frank Okam the most likely player for us to draft next year unless Thomas has a break out season and becomes a good starter as a rookie.

Not necessarily. The woes of our defensive line have been happening since Berry, Hayward and Pryce all left in consecutive years. Denver had the ability and the ammunition to address the need over the past several years. I'm not talking about 2006, I'm talking a lot earlier on.

Frank Okam is a nice target, and I think he's a great fit for us. Whether or not he's the "most likely" man at this stage is way too early to predict, but I would assume he's up there. There's a lot of 6'4 - 300 + tackles who are effective two-gap guys and have a lot of flexibility on the line coming in this draft.

I don't expect Thomas to make a HUGE impact this year, but he should do well. Defensive tackle is a need regardless of who steps up. Kennedy and Adams are one year rentals, as are most of the other guys. (Burton, etc.) Denver needs a long-term option and a partner for the future and if they get another defensive tackle, they'll have their first-line (hopefully) set for a while now.

Cugel
08-17-2007, 07:10 PM
Keep in mind here that all Warren was in this defense is a 2 down run clogger. Ekuban moves in to DT on passing downs and is paired with a more traditional "Under Tackle" type, which looks to be Veal or McKinley at this point.

Ekuban is 275 and not a DT, but I suppose he needs to get on the field somewhere and it doesn't look like he's going to start at LDE (Crowder's injury notwithstanding). As of now, the best run defender at LDE for 1st and 2nd downs has been Engleberger. Don't ask me to comment on that disappointing development.

But, McKinley and Veal are scrubs who can't rush the passer at all, so putting them in on 3rd downs is NOT going to collapse the pocket. I suspect that they will use Thomas on 3rd down (and more than 5 yards). He's at least 6'4" 315 and has the size to clog and the speed to penetrate. He's lacking in experience and you can't send him out there on 1st and 2nd downs, but in a 3rd down nickel package he'll be useful this season.

That means using Ekuban and Thomas in nickel with Dumervil and Moss at DEs. That's a package which can get after the pass-rusher.

The problem is however on 1st and 2nd down. Teams aren't going to GET into 3rd and long a lot if they can run.

So, since Adams can't stay in the game more than about 15-20 snaps without being gassed that leaves:


Jimmy Kennedy looks to be able to fill Warren's shoes for that 2 down run stuffer, and if he can't, I'm sure Amon Gordon can. It's not that hard to find a quality fat guy that just stands up his blockers. The problem with Warren is that he throws a temper tantrum when he's relegated to that role.


You yourself have pointed out on more than one occasion how useless Jimmy Kennedy was with the Rams because they wanted him to clog. He utterly failed to hold his own against the run and didn't against the 49ers last week either. While the 49ers have a good OL as you point out, that doesn't mean other teams in the division won't do the same thing!


This trade/release is more about not having to listen to Warren cry and moan all season for being misused, then it is for him not fitting the system. In the end though, he doesn't fit the system, at least not mentally.

I'm not at all sure Warren won't be back with the team or that it won't be for the best. There seems to be very little interest in Warren at all and nobody is lining up to trade for him. At best some team might give him a look if he's released. The Broncos can go back to him and say: "we tried to trade you but nobody bit. We're not going to release you for nothing! Get your ass in gear and quit whining and we'll release you at the end of the season."

Now, if he whines he slides down the depth chart which won't help his stock as a FA. If he starts and clogs for a year he gets released, and just like Trevor Pryce, he can complain that the Broncos misused his awesome talents. Some team might buy it, who knows. At least he'll have been a starter for the year instead of sitting on the bench.

Cugel
08-17-2007, 07:21 PM
Not necessarily. The woes of our defensive line have been happening since Berry, Hayward and Pryce all left in consecutive years. Denver had the ability and the ammunition to address the need over the past several years. I'm not talking about 2006, I'm talking a lot earlier on.

Frank Okam is a nice target, and I think he's a great fit for us. Whether or not he's the "most likely" man at this stage is way too early to predict, but I would assume he's up there. There's a lot of 6'4 - 300 + tackles who are effective two-gap guys and have a lot of flexibility on the line coming in this draft.

I don't expect Thomas to make a HUGE impact this year, but he should do well. Defensive tackle is a need regardless of who steps up. Kennedy and Adams are one year rentals, as are most of the other guys. (Burton, etc.) Denver needs a long-term option and a partner for the future and if they get another defensive tackle, they'll have their first-line (hopefully) set for a while now.

I agree with you about Thomas. As for next year's draft, they probably need 2 DTs in that draft unless they go out and pick up another starter via FA. Amon Gordon is a scrub, Thomas has a ways to go, Veal and McKinley are backups at best.

They need a serious infusion of talent at DT, that's for sure!

Problem is that guys who can play strong against the run AND collapse the pocket are rare and almost never are available outside the first 15 picks of the first round. That's "impact player" territory and only 2 DTs were chosen that high this year: Omobe Okoye and Justin Timmons (whom the Broncos wanted to draft at #21 but he was taken by Tennessee at #16). Teams doubted that Alan Branch really deserved that kind of draft position after his poor workouts and he slid to the 2nd round.

Since the Broncos are unlikely to be in position to have a top 15 draft pick next year, they'd almost certainly have to trade up to get a chance at an impact DT.

If all they want are some strong warm bodies to clog, they can probably find one in the 3rd round or pick up somebody via FA.

Dream
08-17-2007, 09:53 PM
I agree with you about Thomas. As for next year's draft, they probably need 2 DTs in that draft unless they go out and pick up another starter via FA. Amon Gordon is a scrub, Thomas has a ways to go, Veal and McKinley are backups at best.

They need a serious infusion of talent at DT, that's for sure!

Problem is that guys who can play strong against the run AND collapse the pocket are rare and almost never are available outside the first 15 picks of the first round. That's "impact player" territory and only 2 DTs were chosen that high this year: Omobe Okoye and Justin Timmons (whom the Broncos wanted to draft at #21 but he was taken by Tennessee at #16). Teams doubted that Alan Branch really deserved that kind of draft position after his poor workouts and he slid to the 2nd round.

Since the Broncos are unlikely to be in position to have a top 15 draft pick next year, they'd almost certainly have to trade up to get a chance at an impact DT.

If all they want are some strong warm bodies to clog, they can probably find one in the 3rd round or pick up somebody via FA.

Justin Harrell, you mean. . . Lawrence Timmons was the linebacker we were targeting who went to Pittsburgh.

It'd be nice if we had a third round pick, but at this point we don't. I'm keeping a close eye on the defensive tackles in this draft. Some of them are bigger guys we like, but might be more apt for a Cover 2 scheme like Warren would fit into quite well. At this point, I have my eyes set on about four guys who I think fit our mold pretty well. Okam, Bryant, Raji and Moore. Harrison possibly, and Fluellen is definitely a Cover 2 type guy. Norwell is a big, productive guy who will probably get some mid-round consideration.

If the value is there for a player, I think we take it and I think that Okam is a name you might see very similar to Alan Branch's this past year. You'll hear a lot of the same criticisms, at least in my opinion - and a guy who is very talented will go lower than he should because he's over analyzed.

At any case, I think Thomas learns the ropes for a while and makes an impact halfway through the season for the team. Adjusting to his position is hard, and he has a lot of rust to shake off from college.

I just hope Tim, Jarvis and Marcus have a healthy season and can contribute. Immediate impact would be excellent, but I think the truth of the situation is and I've thought since the beginning, Tim would be the guy who would offer the most right now. It sure seems to look like that's the case. No doubt that Jarvis and Marcus have the explosiveness and upside, but Tim's a pretty polished player who seems to be doing well.

I hope the success continues, and with a couple extra selections (minus the third) in next year's draft - we have some ammunition. It'd be nice if Warren could get a little more "oh" factor into our draft for 2008.

Javalon
08-17-2007, 09:57 PM
Simple, I'm pretty confident it's Warren who is being unwilling here. Either that, or the Broncos realized that he wasn't worth a damn penny of what we gave him and have found better options.

Javalon and Dogfish mentioned keeping him around for a few reasons, but you don't want his presence in the locker room. He's been a piss poor sport since he came into the league. Always has been, always will be. I don't care how "cheap" his base salary is this year, you don't put unmotivated fat lards like Warren on the field who don't want to be there in the first place.
It's possible you're correct but it's possible you're wrong, as well. Have you heard any hint of Warren causing trouble in the locker room since he's been here? He didn't have a problem going public with his dissatisfaction in Cleveland so why wouldn't he do the same here if he's that poor of a sport?

And what better motivation is there than for him to play well this year knowing we'll make him a free agent next year? Money is apparently what motivated him the year before last, why not now?


Just chalk up another mistake for the Broncos FO when it comes to Warren. Had they actually paid attention to the defensive line for the past several years and not passed up the prime players they could have taken in each draft at the position, we wouldn't be in this 36 million dollar fiasco with Warren. In my time watching the Broncos, (ten years) this has to be one of the top five or so mistakes made.

Ridiculous.
True, it's a big mistake. But it's a logical mistake. Warren played very well for us, doing the unglamorous work we asked of him, the year before last. The Broncos had to make a choice of either paying him and hoping he would keep his play up or to let him go and possibly regret it if he played well elsewhere. And considering the lack of talent on our line (yes, because we didn't draft D-line), I think it was the logical choice to re-sign him. But hindsight is 20/20.

Also, it's not a technically $36 million mistake since we only lose the bonus money which I believe was about $10 million. He played one year :sick: of the contract, so prorated it's only $8 million. Plus Warren supposedly agreed to remove a $3 million option bonus this offseason, which might have been part of that bonus money, and he took a paycut on his base salary for this season. So, I don't know what the exact figures are but it's probably no more than an $8 million loss, perhaps even $5 million or lower dependening on the structure of the bonus money. And split between two seasons it won't hurt nearly as bad as it could have.

But I'm still hoping he'll play this year with some fire knowing he needs to look good for next offseason if he wants another big payday. Then that prorated loss would only be about $6 million or less.

But yeah, still a bitter pill to swallow.

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-17-2007, 10:09 PM
Not necessarily. The woes of our defensive line have been happening since Berry, Hayward and Pryce all left in consecutive years. Denver had the ability and the ammunition to address the need over the past several years. I'm not talking about 2006, I'm talking a lot earlier on.

Frank Okam is a nice target, and I think he's a great fit for us. Whether or not he's the "most likely" man at this stage is way too early to predict, but I would assume he's up there. There's a lot of 6'4 - 300 + tackles who are effective two-gap guys and have a lot of flexibility on the line coming in this draft.

I don't expect Thomas to make a HUGE impact this year, but he should do well. Defensive tackle is a need regardless of who steps up. Kennedy and Adams are one year rentals, as are most of the other guys. (Burton, etc.) Denver needs a long-term option and a partner for the future and if they get another defensive tackle, they'll have their first-line (hopefully) set for a while now.I would like to draft this guy next season in the draft from LSU Glenn Dorsey DT

http://draftdaddy.com/images/players/glenndorsey_front.jpg

Morambar
08-18-2007, 12:41 AM
It's hard to really dispute most of the analysis here, which makes me feel a lot worse about the idea of exacerbating the problems with an already unhappy Warren at a time when it'll be very hard to get much for him. Stuff like this is why I wanted two DTs rather than two DEs, and I personally think our best bet is, if possible, to keep Warren for another year and see about an off season trade whose prospects he could improve. Then go after a couple DTs and a MLB on the first day of the 2008 draft. And pray a lot in the interim, because with the exception of Adams none of the other guys we've got fits the mold of the kind of clogger Bates has historically wanted in the middle of his defensive line. This is what made me tear my hair out when people kept shrieking "we need D line, we need D line!1!1" No, we need TACKLES; the ends we had would be just find if they weren't out there all alone, and no ends we can get will be much better if they're out there all alone. I don't really want to dump Lang, but given the relative depth at tackle and end I'd rather try to trade him for a beefy DT than trade or cut Warren for nothing.

Dream
08-18-2007, 05:08 AM
I would like to draft this guy next season in the draft from LSU Glenn Dorsey DT

http://draftdaddy.com/images/players/glenndorsey_front.jpg

I see Dorsey being in the Warren Sapp mold of defensive tackles. I think he could go in the top five, and unless he has an injury like Harrell did - I don't think he slips out of the top ten. He's that good.

Dream
08-18-2007, 05:45 AM
It's possible you're correct but it's possible you're wrong, as well. Have you heard any hint of Warren causing trouble in the locker room since he's been here? He didn't have a problem going public with his dissatisfaction in Cleveland so why wouldn't he do the same here if he's that poor of a sport?

I feel confident in my assessment on the situation. Warren has always been known as a poor sport, and as I also mentioned - someone who is completely unmotivated to play the game. Looking back on his years in Cleveland, Warren was sick of playing for a bad team, and he did not like what was going to be asked of him in the 3-4 defense. I don't know if Warren can really say anything, but I think he's probably the culprit behind these trade talks.

I just can't think of any other way you go from #1 DT to on the axe the next day. *shrugs* I think he WANTS this.


And what better motivation is there than for him to play well this year knowing we'll make him a free agent next year? Money is apparently what motivated him the year before last, why not now?

I think teams are going to be hesitant about giving any guy who is a known underachiever like Warren any sort of payday. He got a deal with the Broncos, but proved that he could never live up to it. Like PFT said, he's a guy who gets "soft" when the money is given to him. Many thought this of Trevor too, especially when you look his performances after his extension. Unless he played remarkable, I think he's pretty much up the creek without a paddle.


True, it's a big mistake. But it's a logical mistake. Warren played very well for us, doing the unglamorous work we asked of him, the year before last. The Broncos had to make a choice of either paying him and hoping he would keep his play up or to let him go and possibly regret it if he played well elsewhere. And considering the lack of talent on our line (yes, because we didn't draft D-line), I think it was the logical choice to re-sign him. But hindsight is 20/20.

I thought it was logical to extend him, but for the contract he got? It smelled of desperation. I don't even know if he was worth half of that.


Also, it's not a technically $36 million mistake since we only lose the bonus money which I believe was about $10 million. He played one year :sick: of the contract, so prorated it's only $8 million. Plus Warren supposedly agreed to remove a $3 million option bonus this offseason, which might have been part of that bonus money, and he took a paycut on his base salary for this season. So, I don't know what the exact figures are but it's probably no more than an $8 million loss, perhaps even $5 million or lower dependening on the structure of the bonus money. And split between two seasons it won't hurt nearly as bad as it could have.

But I'm still hoping he'll play this year with some fire knowing he needs to look good for next offseason if he wants another big payday. Then that prorated loss would only be about $6 million or less.

But yeah, still a bitter pill to swallow.

You're right, but I'm just saying to begin with, the 36 million dollars was a mistake. Either way, the Broncos pretty much lose with Warren. The hit is going to hurt. We had cleared a lot of cap space for next season, and getting rid of him via trade or release will impact that.

I think with the trades lingering on for so long, the Broncos aren't going to get crap. If they were offered a "starter" for him, it'd be interesting to see where it was at, or who it was. The Broncos should have taken any reasonable offer instead of playing "hardball" which they seem to be pretty pathetic at, but excellent at spotting with other teams with disgruntled players.

Even with teams needing defensive tackles, there's really no market for a guy like Warren. Why give up a pick for a guy who is probably going to get thrown out for free anyways?

Cugel
08-18-2007, 08:56 AM
It's possible you're correct but it's possible you're wrong, as well. Have you heard any hint of Warren causing trouble in the locker room since he's been here? He didn't have a problem going public with his dissatisfaction in Cleveland so why wouldn't he do the same here if he's that poor of a sport?

And what better motivation is there than for him to play well this year knowing we'll make him a free agent next year? Money is apparently what motivated him the year before last, why not now?


True, it's a big mistake. But it's a logical mistake. Warren played very well for us, doing the unglamorous work we asked of him, the year before last. The Broncos had to make a choice of either paying him and hoping he would keep his play up or to let him go and possibly regret it if he played well elsewhere. And considering the lack of talent on our line (yes, because we didn't draft D-line), I think it was the logical choice to re-sign him. But hindsight is 20/20.

Also, it's not a technically $36 million mistake since we only lose the bonus money which I believe was about $10 million. He played one year :sick: of the contract, so prorated it's only $8 million. Plus Warren supposedly agreed to remove a $3 million option bonus this offseason, which might have been part of that bonus money, and he took a paycut on his base salary for this season. So, I don't know what the exact figures are but it's probably no more than an $8 million loss, perhaps even $5 million or lower dependening on the structure of the bonus money. And split between two seasons it won't hurt nearly as bad as it could have.

But I'm still hoping he'll play this year with some fire knowing he needs to look good for next offseason if he wants another big payday. Then that prorated loss would only be about $6 million or less.

But yeah, still a bitter pill to swallow.

Jav, if you think back to last year it really would have been impossible to cut Warren at that time. The team had just let Trevor Pryce go via FA because he refused to restructure his contract. That was already a big blow to the team.

Then Courtney Brown's knees forced him out for the entire season and forced his retirement. So, they lost their starting DEs from 2005. Then Warren was the ONLY 1/2 way decent DT they had.

Of course it turned out he was hurt virtually the entire season with turf-toe and was largely ineffective, but they couldn't have predicted that.

Without Warren their starting DTs were Demetrin Veal and Mike Myers, probably the worst starting DT duo in the league!

And who would they have brought in as backups? Even worse than that! As bad as things were defensively by the end of last season it could have been worse!

As for Dream's comments about Warren being a pain in the ass, I think you're over-analyzing the situation. The Broncos have 9 DTs, looking at the current depth chart:

LT: Sam Adams, Jimmy Kennedy, Amon Gordon and Antwon Burton
RT: Warren, Marcus Thomas, McKinley, Demtrin Veal and Steven Harris.

They are only going to keep 5 of these guys at most. Amon Gordon looks like a useful clogger and has moved up the depth chart, so they probably keep him. Thomas is a rookie and they have to keep him. Sam Adams is the starter and it looks like Kennedy will see lots of action as his backup because Adams certainly can't play an entire game if they want to keep him healthy.

The team might simply want to keep both Gordon and Veal for special teams which Warren doesn't play. So, it comes down to whether they want Warren, McKinley or Veal. Warren might just be the man out.

Personally I think Warren is better than Jimmy Kennedy, but then so is the Pillsbury Doughboy, so that's not saying much. The coaches may simply think Kennedy's attitude is better than Warren's though, I don't know.

Or, alternately the 5 DTs might be:

LT: Adams, Kennedy, Gordon
RT: McKinley, Thomas.

That assumes that Kennedy is ready to be in the lineup on more than just 3rd downs, but if not then maybe Gordon backs him up.

The alternative to this is keep Veal instead of McKinley, but that would mean Veal or Kennedy starts and that is too horrible a possibility for me to contemplate this early in the day, without at least some serious medication first.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
08-18-2007, 04:36 PM
McKinley is a very, very good DT. I have no idea why people are panning on him. The last time he played in the 4-3, he put up great stats on a bad team, and he's excellent against the run while providing some pass rush skills. The only issue I see is that he's drastically lighter then what Bates generally uses, but he can play, and we did just sign him to a fairly big 4 year deal this offseason, though I have no idea if its really a one year deal in disguise.


As for keeping Warren, we've gone down this road before. We tried to trade Trevor Pryce like gangbusters, nobody would take him, so the team and Pryce made up, he lasted one more year before we released him, and he promptly went to Baltimore and told everyone who listened how crappy our defensive schemes were. I absolutely can see us doing the same with Warren, and I don't really care either way, I'm just glad the team has concluded that Warren is not the "guy" to build our DT position around.


As for getting Dorsey or Okam in the draft, it's not going to happen. But then, all we want are two down fat-bodies, and you can get those easily in the 3rd-5th rounds.

ChampWJ
08-19-2007, 01:27 AM
So does anyone think that the lack of a pass rush combined with the loss of Ekuban for the season might lead to Gerard's return to the Broncos this week. I read that Shanny left open the possibility since they can't find a suitable trade partner.

I think we still need Warren. Anyone want to argue with that?

TXBRONC
08-19-2007, 07:31 AM
So does anyone think that the lack of a pass rush combined with the loss of Ekuban for the season might lead to Gerard's return to the Broncos this week. I read that Shanny left open the possibility since they can't find a suitable trade partner.

I think we still need Warren. Anyone want to argue with that?

Yes I think that with the current circumstances Shanahan just might ditch the ideas getting rid of Warren.

broncolee
08-19-2007, 08:20 AM
How does Ekuban's situation affect Warren? I can understand keeping Warren if there are no suitable trade offers, but I don't see how losing Ekuban would make the Broncos change their minds about Warren, unless a DT will then be switched to DE. I don't see that happening.

Someone offered the theory that Warren may have asked for a trade. If that's the case, I could definitely see the FO and Shanahan telling him that he has to stay and suck it up because no one is offering a suitable trade. But, it's already been said in some articles that the Broncos want to trade him because he doesn't fit the scheme. How do you keep a guy after you say he doesn't fit the scheme and you've made attempts to trade him? That could hurt the team's credibility. Using the loss of Ekuban as an excuse to keep Warren won't help their credibility because one is a DE and the other is a DT.

If the team does keep Warren, what happens to the starting lineup? Do you start a player who could possibly be less motivated to play? Can you get him to play well if you promise to trade or release him next year? I'm not opposed to the team keeping Warren, I just think that it's more likely that he gets released despite the loss of Ekuban.

Cugel
08-19-2007, 12:09 PM
McKinley is a very, very good DT. I have no idea why people are panning on him. The last time he played in the 4-3, he put up great stats on a bad team, and he's excellent against the run while providing some pass rush skills. The only issue I see is that he's drastically lighter then what Bates generally uses, but he can play, and we did just sign him to a fairly big 4 year deal this offseason, though I have no idea if its really a one year deal in disguise.

As for keeping Warren, we've gone down this road before. We tried to trade Trevor Pryce like gangbusters, nobody would take him, so the team and Pryce made up, he lasted one more year before we released him, and he promptly went to Baltimore and told everyone who listened how crappy our defensive schemes were. I absolutely can see us doing the same with Warren, and I don't really care either way, I'm just glad the team has concluded that Warren is not the "guy" to build our DT position around.


As for getting Dorsey or Okam in the draft, it's not going to happen. But then, all we want are two down fat-bodies, and you can get those easily in the 3rd-5th rounds.
You've said this before about McKinley and I've been watching him without seeing much. He didn't play this last game which was too bad, because they could have used him out there.

Frankly he may end up being very important for the Broncos this season because based on watching Sam Adams this past game I don't think he's got much chance of lasting the season. In fact, I doubt he makes it to mid-season. He looked totally gassed after plays in the 2nd quarter. He's NOT being double-teamed and yet he's not stacking up the line and making plays either. I don't know how his knee is holding out, but he looked like an old man out there yesterday. Perhaps it was the heat and humidity, but then he's going to have to play in heat and humidity this season. Not every game will be played at 40 degrees to suit Sam Adams.

Perhaps that's just Dallas' OL which is huge, but he did nothing against S.F. either. McKinley and Gordon are likely to wind up being the starting DTs with Kennedy and Thomas coming in to spell them. The Broncos might even keep 5 DTs.

The problem is that McKinley IS too light at 294 to excel in Bates' system and take on 2 OL.

Frankly, I think they need Warren at this point. None of the DTs has looked even adequate so far this pre-season.

gyldenlove
08-19-2007, 01:34 PM
Warren has to go now. After they told him he was out they burned all the bridges. The only reason we stuck with Pryce after we tried to trade him was because he was a lifelong Bronco at the time and had some loyalty to the team that gave him a big fat deal and a couple of trips to Honolulu.

Warren has little reason to be loyal to the Broncos and since they are most likely trying to trade him because they are afraid he will disruptive and distracting in the locker room if he is unhappy bringing him back would be downright stupid.

As for Ekuban going down, I see Crowder as the starter now if he is healthy. The only 2 other viable options seem to be signing or trading for someone who is left over elsewhere or moving McKinley back to DE where he played last year, albeit in a 3-4 front.

dogfish
08-19-2007, 01:43 PM
Not every game will be played at 40 degrees to suit Sam Adams.




naturally, sam adams is best in the low 40's!


:beer: :beer:

Morambar
08-19-2007, 11:23 PM
How does Ekuban's situation affect Warren? I can understand keeping Warren if there are no suitable trade offers, but I don't see how losing Ekuban would make the Broncos change their minds about Warren, unless a DT will then be switched to DE. I don't see that happening.

Someone offered the theory that Warren may have asked for a trade. If that's the case, I could definitely see the FO and Shanahan telling him that he has to stay and suck it up because no one is offering a suitable trade. But, it's already been said in some articles that the Broncos want to trade him because he doesn't fit the scheme. How do you keep a guy after you say he doesn't fit the scheme and you've made attempts to trade him? That could hurt the team's credibility. Using the loss of Ekuban as an excuse to keep Warren won't help their credibility because one is a DE and the other is a DT.

If the team does keep Warren, what happens to the starting lineup? Do you start a player who could possibly be less motivated to play? Can you get him to play well if you promise to trade or release him next year? I'm not opposed to the team keeping Warren, I just think that it's more likely that he gets released despite the loss of Ekuban.
Ekuban was the only proven run stopper we had at end, though there's some hope for Crowder. For all that people have been down on Lang and Dumervil, Moss looks like a very similar player with the difference being he's taller than Dumervil (but apparently doesn't have much longer arms; Elvis has quite a wingspan by all accounts). With the way our first team DTs got shoved around by a mediocre Cowboys line we need Warren, because even if he doesn't enjoy being a run stuffer he IS good at it, and that's something we really can't say with any certainty about any of our other DTs save Adams, who can't play a lot of downs anyway.

If you don't understand why losing Ekuban for the season makes dumping Warren in favor of Amon Gordon less attractive than it already was go back and watch the first game against SD last year. Specifically, the play where Tomlinson was stuffed at the right sideline and ran the width of the field to try and get open, something he looked very likely to do since there was NO ONE in front of him on the left. There was, however, someone behind him: Ebenezer Ekuban, who followed him all the way across the field, ran him down and tackled him for a loss. He's a big BIG loss we can ill afford on a team of pass rushing ends and finesse pass rushing tackles. I just hope Adams' knees hold up and Kennedy is as good at a job he hates as Warren is. Otherwise it's gonna be a very long season unless your name is Tomlinson, Johnson or Addai.