Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trevor on the Trading Block

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bleedbluorange
    replied
    Originally posted by Javalon
    You know, I was down on Portis last year when he threatened the holdout. But this is entirely different.

    Pryce has a contract and has done nothing wrong. The Broncos gave him that contract and now they want cut it down or get rid of him. I understand the financial difficulty of the situation but Pryce is under no obligation to reduce his pay. Sure, he didn't play a lot last year but that wasn't his fault. His injury was incurred while working for the Broncos. That shouldn't be held against him.

    If the Broncos end up trading him, they shouldn't be blamed because they're in a tough spot. If Pryce refuses a paycut, he shouldn't be blamed because the Broncos officials signed that contract. It is suprising how many people are suddenly wanting to get rid of him.
    It does amaze me how this board turns on any player at any time. I dont think any player is safe. Pryce, Rod, Nalen and Elam are all we have left from the superbowl years. You would think that Pryce would have more support. I can deal with him being traded. But I believe we are trading a heck of a player. Everyone is trashing him now. Last week it was "wait till trevor gets back healthy". Now he's damaged goods.

    We are gonna look stupid when he comes back healthy and we only got a third or fourth round pick for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Javalon
    replied
    Originally posted by Black59Razor
    Aren't we missing the point here...what exactly would you be able to trade to get Moss?

    Any deal to trade for him would have to include Champ Bailey and your first round pick for starters...

    The idea of trading for Moss is pie-in-the-sky....the Vikings want three players minimum, weather that be two picks and a player or vice versa....ask yourself....if you are the Vikings, who would you want on the Broncos roster?
    But there's no way the Broncos could trade Bailey, even if they wanted to (which they don't). His huge signing bonus would accelerate and abosulutely decimate our salary cap. He's here to stay for awhile.

    Moss if a difficult problem as a fan. I don't want him on the Broncos but I don't want him on any of our opponents, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mat'hir Uth Gan
    replied
    Originally posted by Black59Razor
    Aren't we missing the point here...what exactly would you be able to trade to get Moss?

    Any deal to trade for him would have to include Champ Bailey and your first round pick for starters...

    The idea of trading for Moss is pie-in-the-sky....the Vikings want three players minimum, weather that be two picks and a player or vice versa....ask yourself....if you are the Vikings, who would you want on the Broncos roster?

    Question for you...

    Sign Jerry Porter for big bucks or trade for Moss?

    And who would be traded, Thomas and Baxter?

    Leave a comment:


  • Javalon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bokyong
    That's why The Vikings went 2-3 when Moss was out those 5 weeks. That's under 500 without Moss. Iam not saying jake is the BEST QB on the planet, nor was I saying Jake is better than CUlpepper or vice versa, this was never a QB debate on who was better. I used Jake as an example because in those 5 games Moss was out, CUlpepper was INCONSISTENT like Jake has been all season. Some games he is on fire then some other games I am left thinking what the hell happened?. My point I was trying to make is Moss made a difference when he was playing. Culpepper stats dropped when Moss was out, we both agree on that. What I am trying to say is Jake would be a better QB with Moss on our team. Hell ANY QB would be a hell of a lot better with Moss on their team.
    Okay, I can see what you're saying.

    But the Vikings went 5-5 with Moss (they basically won the Saints game without him, 2 catches, 1 TD, 1 INT that he couldn't outjump the defender). And the original point to which I was responding was that Moss would bring us a Super Bowl. And my point was that, even with what I consider to be a better QB throwing to him, the Vikes were a mediocre team, with Moss or without. No matter how talented he is, Moss isn't going to single-handedly bring any team a Super Bowl, or even a winning season for that matter. This is a team game, and if his talent is counteracted by disrupting the team, it's a wash but a very expensive one.

    And for the record, I'd take Culpepper over Plummer if given the choice. But that doesn't mean I think Plummer is a bad QB, just that there are better out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmjk
    replied
    First, I like TP.
    second, its crazy to trade the best player in a position of great need.

    If we do go ahead with a trade, this is a probable scenario:

    Never to AFC west or top AFC team.
    Move up in the first round maybe 10 or less slots, second or third and one or two on the second day. A second will come only if that team has two seconds. They probably will list a conditionary pick based on performance in future drafts.

    I like Rueban too and would like to see him get a chance to start at tailback.
    but if not, look for a third or lower with maybe multiple second day picks.

    Look for the broncos to package some of those picks to gain a extra first round at the end of the first or multiple seconds and thirds to address needs and next years possible exits.

    Leave a comment:


  • luvdembroncs
    replied
    Originally posted by bleedbluorange
    I have just read every single post on this and I am trippin. I cant believe how some of you act when a player does something in their own interest. But let the team run rough shot over a loyal player. Next person on your precious cap list is Smith. I know that you guys are gonna turn on him too.
    Sorry, but I disagree. I think Pryce is an awesome player. I love him as a Bronco. But if trading him will help the Broncos become better then I am willing to accept it. My loyalty is to the Broncos.

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Bad John

    The only reason that I ever would even consider dealing Pryce is the spinal injury. If he was recovering from a lesser injury, I wouldn't consider dealing Pryce. I would rather have a 3rd rounder to draft a rushing end with than damaged goods and dead-weight on the cap. I see almost no possibility of Pryce returning to his Pro-Bowl form of years past and nostalgia will only get you so far.
    And no GM in their right mind would take him if still injured. Either way I think Denver and Pryce can come out the better on this situation. If we keep him great, if he's dealt as much as I like him I understand the reasons for doing so.

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by bleedbluorange
    Finally. I was waiting to see if there was any support for Trevor. I see how it can be good for the team. But I also know Trevor is a beast. Everyone has said wait till Trevor gets back. Now it's like he's worthless to us.

    All I can say is that I think it's real messed up that ppl have this attitude. Than come on here and talk down on Portis. The team can dog out a player but the player should be all about the team
    I'm not against Pryce staying, but I can see where by letting him go it might actually be a benefit, especially if we pick up a high draft pick or two this year. It also gives us more cap leverage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch_mob
    replied
    [FONT=Arial]When it comes to a position like D-line, it's really not that hard to find someone else to take Pryce's place. However, I don't want him to go anywhere, but you have to look at it from the salary cap point of view. He didn't even play this year, but he was paid all that money. At his age he's probably going to be getting injured a lot more before the end of his career. That's how the coaches look at it. I'm guessing.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by Shocker
    Yeah but if we can get a high pick or Moss for him, it would be a steal!
    Bringing Moss in would be a way to steal the chances of the Broncos future from them. Like Portis, he's all about himself, not the team and not their chances for a Superbowl ring.

    Leave a comment:


  • donjuan
    replied
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html


    Pryces agent believes that the trade talk is more along the lines of Denvers adaptation to the 3-4 where as Trevor works best in the 4-3. I think even if he were to restructure, it would just be to make him a more attractive trade candidate. If we can get into the middle of the first round with any kind of trade package I think will be good. This years draft is thin anyways. Plus we'd be able to add onto the 2 mill. that we have available under the cap. I have faith in Shanny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mat'hir Uth Gan
    replied
    Originally posted by bleedbluorange
    Pryce is much better than Heyward. I cant turn my back on him after an injury plagued season.
    Well, you have to consider cost and production, basically the cost/benefit analysis.

    Heyward is several years younger then Pryce.
    Heyward has a healthy back for a position that demands leverage.
    Heyward had more sacks last season then Pryce has had in 4 years.
    Heyward had the same amount of tackles as Pryce usually has.
    Heyward, while still expensive, is several million per season cheaper then Pryce.

    Pryce, when healthy, can play DT and give more flexibility.
    Pryce, when healthy, is solid against the run.
    Pryce has established consistency over a period of time that he is good.


    Heyward makes more sense if you had to choose one or the other. The problem is, he's going to be really pursued on the open market, and to keep him, we may have to overpay. Which, if we are switching to a 3-4, as we should, I would not do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bokyong
    replied
    That's why The Vikings went 2-3 when Moss was out those 5 weeks. That's under 500 without Moss. Iam not saying jake is the BEST QB on the planet, nor was I saying Jake is better than CUlpepper or vice versa, this was never a QB debate on who was better. I used Jake as an example because in those 5 games Moss was out, CUlpepper was INCONSISTENT like Jake has been all season. Some games he is on fire then some other games I am left thinking what the hell happened?. My point I was trying to make is Moss made a difference when he was playing. Culpepper stats dropped when Moss was out, we both agree on that. What I am trying to say is Jake would be a better QB with Moss on our team. Hell ANY QB would be a hell of a lot better with Moss on their team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bokyong
    replied
    Originally posted by Javalon
    Well, of course you don't think passer rating is a good stat because it doesn't support your argument. But I'm sure you've noticed analysts using passer rating quite often when talking about QBs because it is a means of comparing QBs regardless of how many passes they had to throw.

    Culpepper should have had a dropoff in play without Moss because he lost his best receiver. How do think Jake would have fared this season if Rod Smith had been hurt for about a 6 game stretch? Anyway, comparing Culpepper without Moss versus Jake's season stats, Culpepper wins each category:

    Culpepper: 104.3 QB rating, 7.86 yards per attempt, 267.3 yards per game, 2.33 TDs per game, .83 INTs per game, 21.7 rushing yards per game

    Plummer: 84.5 QB rating, 7.85 yards per attempt, 255.6 yards per game, 1.69 TDs per game, 1.25 INTs per game, 12.6 rushing yards per game

    Listen, I'm not ripping on Jake. But just because he's a Bronco doesn't mean we have to delude ourselves into thinking he's one of the best QBs in the league. Culpepper, in my opinion, is a better QB than Jake, with or without Moss. Culpepper has a stronger arm, a more acurate arm, is better throwing from the pocket and is more mobile than Jake.

    You're entitled to your opinion, and it's hard to prove either way, but I don't believe the stats or the QBs' respective physical abilities back you up.
    That's why The Vikings went 2-3 when Moss was out those 5 weeks. That's under 500 without Moss. Iam not saying jake is the BEST QB on the planet, nor was I saying Jake is better than CUlpepper or vice versa, this was never a QB debate on who was better. I used Jake as an example because in those 5 games Moss was out, CUlpepper was INCONSISTENT like Jake has been all season. Some games he is on fire then some other games I am left thinking what the hell happened?. My point I was trying to make is Moss made a difference when he was playing. Culpepper stats dropped when Moss was out, we both agree on that. What I am trying to say is Jake would be a better QB with Moss on our team. Hell ANY QB would be a hell of a lot better with Moss on their team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bokyong
    replied
    Originally posted by Javalon
    Well, of course you don't think passer rating is a good stat because it doesn't support your argument. But I'm sure you've noticed analysts using passer rating quite often when talking about QBs because it is a means of comparing QBs regardless of how many passes they had to throw.

    Culpepper should have had a dropoff in play without Moss because he lost his best receiver. How do think Jake would have fared this season if Rod Smith had been hurt for about a 6 game stretch? Anyway, comparing Culpepper without Moss versus Jake's season stats, Culpepper wins each category:

    Culpepper: 104.3 QB rating, 7.86 yards per attempt, 267.3 yards per game, 2.33 TDs per game, .83 INTs per game, 21.7 rushing yards per game

    Plummer: 84.5 QB rating, 7.85 yards per attempt, 255.6 yards per game, 1.69 TDs per game, 1.25 INTs per game, 12.6 rushing yards per game

    Listen, I'm not ripping on Jake. But just because he's a Bronco doesn't mean we have to delude ourselves into thinking he's one of the best QBs in the league. Culpepper, in my opinion, is a better QB than Jake, with or without Moss. Culpepper has a stronger arm, a more acurate arm, is better throwing from the pocket and is more mobile than Jake.

    You're entitled to your opinion, and it's hard to prove either way, but I don't believe the stats or the QBs' respective physical abilities back you up.

    That's why The Vikings went 2-3 when Moss was out those 5 weeks. That's under 500 without Moss. Iam not saying jake is the BEST QB on the planet, nor was I saying Jake is better than CUlpepper or vice versa, this was never a QB debate on who was better. I used Jake as an example because in those 5 games Moss was out, CUlpepper was INCONSISTENT like Jake has been all season. Some games he is on fire then some other games I am left thinking what the hell happened?. My point I was trying to make is Moss made a difference when he was playing. Culpepper stats dropped when Moss was out, we both agree on that. What I am trying to say is Jake would be a better QB with Moss on our team. Hell ANY QB would be a hell of a lot better with Moss on their team.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X