02-04-2010, 09:06 AM
|
#9
|
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 17,584
|
Re: RUMOR: Trade talks between Browns (Brady Quinn) and Broncos (Brandon Marshall)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
So, would you say that it's the football guy who wanted to cut him (Shanahan) who doesn't know what he is at this point, or the current coach who wants to trade him rather than work with him (McDaniels)? Or are they not "football people" if they disagree with you?
Also, do not bother to tell me that you don't judge guys on metrics, while spitting two or three different metrics back at me as to why your point should be considered. You absolutely do use stats to back your points, but high receptions don't tell you anything about the effectiveness of a given player. In a vacuum, high reception players are better than low reception players, but Marshall isn't being compared to Early Doucet and Sam Hurd here. I don't think that Marshall's 100 catch seasons should be ignored, but if most of his catches don't produce first downs, he's not an elite player. Period.
If the Broncos can get a bunch of draft picks and a quarterback or a defensive player for Marshall, more power to them. He'll probably be the No. 1 wherever he goes next , and maybe at some point in his career, he'll play with a defense that will get him into the postseason. He'll always make those highlight reel catches because he's highly skilled at them, but Marshall shouldn't be mentioned with the best in the game. If he is, then his reception total is being overvalued, which, believe it or not, is a stat.
|
Do you have any proof that Shanahan wanted to cut him? All I'm saying is Marshall does things that 90% of the NFL wr's can't do. Calling him "above average" is just ridiculous. I've seen the guy play and just by watching him he's a stud. Runs like a RB after the catch, has good hands and he has the ability to take over games, he's physical...he's everything our offense needs. Your argument comparing Marshall to Edwards is just silly. We'll just agree to disagree.
|
|
|