PDA

View Full Version : I think we should consider trading Kiwi



GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 02:38 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

buddy33
03-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Might as well trade Osi too because they won't be able to keep him either. Next year they have to pay Tuck and he is a priority.

GameTime
03-12-2012, 02:41 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks. He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line. We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB. But, this is just me being arm chair GM.</P>


with Tollefson going and the LB corp getting healthy. Kiwi will be back at DE most likely. He will be needed in the rotation. </P>


He stays....</P>

alau53
03-12-2012, 02:48 PM
this draft is deep in DL..look for gmen to trade down and get one of the lineman in 2nd rd and an extra pick..with the new coll bargaining agreement draft picks are more valuable than ever due to the less money a team has to pay..like gholston was a 4yr/40m flop..now he'd be only a 4yr/25m flop

nhpgiantsfan
03-12-2012, 02:56 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks. He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line. We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB. But, this is just me being arm chair GM.</P>


with Tollefson going and the LB corp getting healthy. Kiwi will be back at DE most likely. He will be needed in the rotation. </P>


He stays....</P>


</P>


If we keep Osi, I really don't think Kiwi moves into the Dline rotation. Tuck, JPP, Osi, &amp; Kiwi are all too good to be in a 4 person rotation. If Osi stays, Kiwi will stay at LB. Keep your best players on the field as much as possible.</P>

G-Man67
03-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Kiwi is younger than Osi, let Osi play out his contract, he should be at his best, since he will be showing off his skills to the entire league in hopes of landing one final big contract</P>

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Might as well trade Osi too because they won't be able to keep him either. Next year they have to pay Tuck and he is a priority.

Osi needs to be priorty as well. He is to much of an impact player. Tuck, Osi and JPP need to be the core on the D line.

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 03:05 PM
My view is we could try and turn Kiwi into 2 cheaper options at DE and LB using the picks he could net us. And the money that he could save us we could use to keep Osi.

This way we could keep a nascar package as well as a rotational run stuffing LB. Rather than paying Kiwi 4 mil to do it we could probably end up paying less then 2mil in rookie contracts with 2 rotational guys.

buddy33
03-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Unless Osi changes his stance on what he shoild get paid I think he is done after this year. To many priority players they have to worry about.

gmen46
03-12-2012, 03:18 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

OK, I've considered it.

NO.

QB and the DL are the LAST positions you want to be cheap, if you expect to have a contender.

And, I don't care if Kiwi was listed as "LB" last year, his role heavily impacted the play of the DL.

Reese's job--and proven ability the past 5 years as GM--is to constantly improve (or, at the very least, maintain) this team within the financial parameters of the league cap.

Trading a proven, reliable, top-tier DE/LB for untested picks "as cheaper replacements on the line and/or LB" is not the path to championships.

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 03:25 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

OK, I've considered it.

NO.

QB and the DL are the LAST positions you want to be cheap, if you expect to have a contender.

And, I don't care if Kiwi was listed as "LB" last year, his role heavily impacted the play of the DL.

Reese's job--and proven ability the past 5 years as GM--is to constantly improve (or, at the very least, maintain) this team within the financial parameters of the league cap.

Trading a proven, reliable, top-tier DE/LB for untested picks "as cheaper replacements on the line and/or LB" is not the path to championships.

The problem is we are probably going to lose Kiwi regardless. When he hits the open market a team is going to give him a starting DE spot and a big contract. We will probably end up losing him for nothing after next season. At least those cheaper replacements will be on the squad for 3-4yrs. And based on Reese ability to find talent in the draft those guys could end up being high quality players as well.

As long as the core of Tuck, Osi, and JPP are together I think the the rest of the parts can be retooled along the front 7 can be retooled.

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 03:30 PM
Last season we had the luxury of having a monster receiving core that was severely underpaid as a whole. So we are able to have money in other places. Very soon Nicks and Cruz will get paid handsomely which means other positions will have to be productive while being cheap in order to maintain championship caliber football.

GameTime
03-12-2012, 03:36 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks. He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line. We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB. But, this is just me being arm chair GM.</P>


with Tollefson going and the LB corp getting healthy. Kiwi will be back at DE most likely. He will be needed in the rotation. </P>


He stays....</P>


</P>


If we keep Osi, I really don't think Kiwi moves into the Dline rotation. Tuck, JPP, Osi, &amp; Kiwi are all too good to be in a 4 person rotation. If Osi stays, Kiwi will stay at LB. Keep your best players on the field as much as possible.</P>


</P>


Good point.....either way I think Kiwi should stay a Giant. </P>


Osi has issues with his knees and Tuck with his shoulder. These I think will be chronic. </P>

JJC7301
03-12-2012, 04:19 PM
I'd rather have Osi than Kiwi. Nothing against Kiwi, but Osi's better. We're not going to be able to keep both of them.

MattMeyerBud
03-12-2012, 04:20 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

not an awful thought, but Kiwi and JWill don't play the same positions

gmen46
03-12-2012, 04:21 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

OK, I've considered it.

NO.

QB and the DL are the LAST positions you want to be cheap, if you expect to have a contender.

And, I don't care if Kiwi was listed as "LB" last year, his role heavily impacted the play of the DL.

Reese's job--and proven ability the past 5 years as GM--is to constantly improve (or, at the very least, maintain) this team within the financial parameters of the league cap.

Trading a proven, reliable, top-tier DE/LB for untested picks "as cheaper replacements on the line and/or LB" is not the path to championships.

The problem is we are probably going to lose Kiwi regardless. When he hits the open market a team is going to give him a starting DE spot and a big contract. We will probably end up losing him for nothing after next season. At least those cheaper replacements will be on the squad for 3-4yrs. And based on Reese ability to find talent in the draft those guys could end up being high quality players as well.

As long as the core of Tuck, Osi, and JPP are together I think the the rest of the parts can be retooled along the front 7 can be retooled.

The problem with your reasoning here is your last sentence. You say as long as the core includes Osi, along with Tuck and JPP.....

Well, Osi is in the same position as Kiwi, in that both of them have 1 more year on their current contracts. Why do you assume Osi will be here after 2012, but Kiwi won't?

I've been a consistent supporter of Osi in the face of all the relentless, crazy, threads about him over the past 3 years--his outrageous contract renewal demands, his "one dimensional" play, everything.

I love and respect what Osi has brought to this team, and I hope he signs 1 more contract with us and finishes his career as a Giant (unlike many on this forum).

But Kiwi has brought a diversity of quality play, along with unwavering discipline and willingness to play wherever coaches ask of him.

And, at least as importantly, Kiwi is 3 years younger than Osi and is entering the prime of his career years.

Why assume "we are probably going to lose Kiwi regardless", and that we will retain Osi?

You can't.

ryan12
03-12-2012, 05:12 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks. He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line. We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB. But, this is just me being arm chair GM.</P>


with Tollefson going and the LB corp getting healthy. Kiwi will be back at DE most likely. He will be needed in the rotation. </P>


He stays....</P>

agreed

nygsb42champs
03-12-2012, 05:14 PM
J Will might be being groomed but he is not s strong side LB.

burier
03-12-2012, 05:18 PM
Kiwi is younger than Osi, let Osi play out his contract, he should be at his best, since he will be showing off his skills to the entire league in hopes of landing one final big contract</P>

Seriously. There's no reason to mention Osi and Kiwi in the same sentense.

Two totally different situations.

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 05:18 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

OK, I've considered it.

NO.

QB and the DL are the LAST positions you want to be cheap, if you expect to have a contender.

And, I don't care if Kiwi was listed as "LB" last year, his role heavily impacted the play of the DL.

Reese's job--and proven ability the past 5 years as GM--is to constantly improve (or, at the very least, maintain) this team within the financial parameters of the league cap.

Trading a proven, reliable, top-tier DE/LB for untested picks "as cheaper replacements on the line and/or LB" is not the path to championships.

The problem is we are probably going to lose Kiwi regardless. When he hits the open market a team is going to give him a starting DE spot and a big contract. We will probably end up losing him for nothing after next season. At least those cheaper replacements will be on the squad for 3-4yrs. And based on Reese ability to find talent in the draft those guys could end up being high quality players as well.

As long as the core of Tuck, Osi, and JPP are together I think the the rest of the parts can be retooled along the front 7 can be retooled.

The problem with your reasoning here is your last sentence. You say as long as the core includes Osi, along with Tuck and JPP.....

Well, Osi is in the same position as Kiwi, in that both of them have 1 more year on their current contracts. Why do you assume Osi will be here after 2012, but Kiwi won't?

I've been a consistent supporter of Osi in the face of all the relentless, crazy, threads about him over the past 3 years--his outrageous contract renewal demands, his "one dimensional" play, everything.

I love and respect what Osi has brought to this team, and I hope he signs 1 more contract with us and finishes his career as a Giant (unlike many on this forum).

But Kiwi has brought a diversity of quality play, along with unwavering discipline and willingness to play wherever coaches ask of him.

And, at least as importantly, Kiwi is 3 years younger than Osi and is entering the prime of his career years.

Why assume "we are probably going to lose Kiwi regardless", and that we will retain Osi?

You can't.

We aren't going to be able to keep both. So we will have to choose between one or the other. I would choose Osi over Kiwi even though he is older as I see Osi as more of an impact player then Kiwi. Kiwi could also net us more of a return then Osi.

This also depends on what Osi wants as a contract though. If he wants like 7-8mil a season then never mind.

PRFan
03-12-2012, 05:28 PM
We won't be able to keep both but which ever goes will free some cap space for the other.
In any case, we prob get a nice comp pick down the line.
We need both this year.

GfieldGmen
03-12-2012, 05:34 PM
We won't be able to keep both but which ever goes will free some cap space for the other.
In any case, we prob get a nice comp pick down the line.
We need both this year.

I was wondering about that. Do you get high comp picks for unrestricted free agents.

Also are we going to get some comp picks this yr for Cofield, Smith, and Boss or did they not accomplish enough to warrant any?

Marvelousmik
03-12-2012, 05:35 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks

MattMeyerBud
03-12-2012, 05:41 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....

Marvelousmik
03-13-2012, 06:10 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.

gmen46
03-13-2012, 11:05 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

lawl
03-13-2012, 11:11 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

lawl
03-13-2012, 11:20 PM
To go further-

Marshall has gone for over 1000 yards every year since his rookie year. Regardless of team and/or ****ty QB.

Marshall was also an All Pro in 2009.

BlueSanta
03-14-2012, 12:33 AM
People need to consider 1) how complicated it is to trade a guy with 1 year left on his deal, because it requires lengthy contract negotiations(teams wont trade for a guy who leaves in 1 year) and 2) how rare it is.

Harooni
03-14-2012, 12:33 AM
Might as well trade Osi too because they won't be able to keep him either. Next year they have to pay Tuck and he is a priority.

Osi needs to be priorty as well. He is to much of an impact player. Tuck, Osi and JPP need to be the core on the D line.

they proved they can win without osi. i know he is good, but we have many options when it comes to de.

NY_Eli
03-14-2012, 12:38 AM
There's more to being a DE then just sacks....Kiwi is an absolute stud. I would hate to see him go.

Coach Carter
03-14-2012, 12:40 AM
Might as well trade Osi too because they won't be able to keep him either. Next year they have to pay Tuck and he is a priority.

Osi needs to be priorty as well. He is to much of an impact player. Tuck, Osi and JPP need to be the core on the D line.

they proved they can win without osi. i know he is good, but we have many options when it comes to de.

This season the giants didn't do well without Osi.

RagTime Blue
03-14-2012, 12:56 AM
With the new CBA, draft picks are worth their weight in GOLD.

I'm looking forward to Kiwi having a fantastic year with us, but I don't see how we can pay him after that. I wouldn't be surprised if Reese sees a SAM-project in the draft. Otherwise, look for Danny Clark 3.0 next year around this time.

Itlan
03-14-2012, 01:32 AM
With the new CBA, draft picks are worth their weight in GOLD.*

I'm looking forward to Kiwi having a fantastic year with us, but I don't see how we can pay him after that.* I wouldn't be surprised if Reese sees a SAM-project in the draft.* Otherwise, look for Danny Clark 3.0 next year around this time.
Man, I had forgotten about him. Did you have to? Ugh.

greenca190
03-14-2012, 02:52 AM
Kiwi gives us the best chance to win right now. Rookie linebackers and defensive ends give us the best chance to win three years from now.

We just won a super bowl. Let's do it again with the best talent we CURRENTLY have.

G-Men Surg.
03-14-2012, 03:34 AM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.
Kiwi is way to valuable in this actual defensive scheme. Intelligent and of course versitale, fairly young and came cheap with that 2 year contract. I don't think trading Kiwi is a good idea, that said if someone comes and offers a juice deal then thats another thing, only sell when someone is interested not the other way around.

RagTime Blue
03-14-2012, 03:43 AM
With the new CBA, draft picks are worth their weight in GOLD.

I'm looking forward to Kiwi having a fantastic year with us, but I don't see how we can pay him after that. I wouldn't be surprised if Reese sees a SAM-project in the draft. Otherwise, look for Danny Clark 3.0 next year around this time.
Man, I had forgotten about him. Did you have to? Ugh.

Would you prefer to talk about Keith Bullock?

Bohemian
03-14-2012, 04:04 AM
Kiwi is way to versatile to be traded. He has proven to be a great teammate and representative of the team. He can certainly shoulder the responsibilities left by the absence of any DE or LB that may be injured during the season. He is our great warrior who will fight for the team in any way he is required to do so. I do know that he is not an all-pro player, but he is good, and a great example for everyone else to follow. He is way too valuable in my book. I would get rid of half of the team before getting rid of Kiwi.

gmen46
03-14-2012, 05:37 AM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

My point was, and is, that in determining positional value to a team in terms of compensation, and therefore trade value as well, a quality proven DE often has as much and in some cases more value to a team than a WR. To most teams who have a tradition of winning, at any rate.

Thus, I responded to poster MM who claimed Kiwi would draw no more than a 5th rd pick in a trade because Marshall generated a trade from Bears for two 3rd rd picks. I would not have made the comparison between the two, but Marvelous did, and I responded.

I already acknowledged Marshall is a blue chip receiver. I just don't have much respect for him as a reliable team contributor. He generates impressive stats, yes, but he often does so when it does not benefit his team, so what good is he to them?

He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

That's not even taking into account his anti social behavior, such as his multiple assault charges by multiple girlfriends/wives over several years.

As for Kiwi being " a rotational player for a majority of his career", as you claim. That's an insult not only to him, but to anyone who has watched his play.

Except for his rookie year in 2006, he has been a starter for most of his career.

--2007, starting LB until he went on IR in Week 10 or 11.

--2008, starting DE in place of Osi being on IR for the entire year

--2009, he was "rotational" before starting DE after Week 10 or 11

--2010, starting as LB or DE for 3 games before he went on IR

--2011, starting LB

giantsfan420
03-14-2012, 06:58 AM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

My point was, and is, that in determining positional value to a team in terms of compensation, and therefore trade value as well, a quality proven DE often has as much and in some cases more value to a team than a WR. To most teams who have a tradition of winning, at any rate.

Thus, I responded to poster MM who claimed Kiwi would draw no more than a 5th rd pick in a trade because Marshall generated a trade from Bears for two 3rd rd picks. I would not have made the comparison between the two, but Marvelous did, and I responded.

I already acknowledged Marshall is a blue chip receiver. I just don't have much respect for him as a reliable team contributor. He generates impressive stats, yes, but he often does so when it does not benefit his team, so what good is he to them?

He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

That's not even taking into account his anti social behavior, such as his multiple assault charges by multiple girlfriends/wives over several years.

As for Kiwi being " a rotational player for a majority of his career", as you claim. That's an insult not only to him, but to anyone who has watched his play.

Except for his rookie year in 2006, he has been a starter for most of his career.

--2007, starting LB until he went on IR in Week 10 or 11.

--2008, starting DE in place of Osi being on IR for the entire year

--2009, he was "rotational" before starting DE after Week 10 or 11

--2010, starting as LB or DE for 3 games before he went on IR

--2011, starting LB

i think another good point to add is how many times has marshall had a great game and his team still loses?

meanwhile, if kiwi has the equivalent of marshalls good day, how many times will the team sill lose?

a team who has a de playing at a dominant level is more likely to win than a team with a wr who has a dominant performance.
jmho

nycsportzfan
03-14-2012, 08:02 AM
With the new CBA, draft picks are worth their weight in GOLD.

I'm looking forward to Kiwi having a fantastic year with us, but I don't see how we can pay him after that. I wouldn't be surprised if Reese sees a SAM-project in the draft. Otherwise, look for Danny Clark 3.0 next year around this time.
Maybe sign Erik Walden from the pack to be a stop gap fill in at SLB, if your to trade KIWI? Walden is a tad better then Danny Clark, but similar stop gap, and is still fairly young, and hits hard... Personally, i want to keep Kiwi, but if we did what the OP said and traded Kiwi, Walden would be a decent stop gap, untill we figured it out...

Captain Chaos
03-14-2012, 09:02 AM
I don't think this is a very good idea...versatility and performance in a reasonable contract.

lawl
03-14-2012, 09:06 AM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

My point was, and is, that in determining positional value to a team in terms of compensation, and therefore trade value as well, a quality proven DE often has as much and in some cases more value to a team than a WR. To most teams who have a tradition of winning, at any rate.

Thus, I responded to poster MM who claimed Kiwi would draw no more than a 5th rd pick in a trade because Marshall generated a trade from Bears for two 3rd rd picks. I would not have made the comparison between the two, but Marvelous did, and I responded.

I already acknowledged Marshall is a blue chip receiver. I just don't have much respect for him as a reliable team contributor. He generates impressive stats, yes, but he often does so when it does not benefit his team, so what good is he to them?

He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

That's not even taking into account his anti social behavior, such as his multiple assault charges by multiple girlfriends/wives over several years.

As for Kiwi being " a rotational player for a majority of his career", as you claim. That's an insult not only to him, but to anyone who has watched his play.

Except for his rookie year in 2006, he has been a starter for most of his career.

--2007, starting LB until he went on IR in Week 10 or 11.

--2008, starting DE in place of Osi being on IR for the entire year

--2009, he was "rotational" before starting DE after Week 10 or 11

--2010, starting as LB or DE for 3 games before he went on IR

--2011, starting LB

That's all nice, but I'm not arguing trade value. I'm telling you that Marshall is a much better player than kiwi is and has had a much more successful career.

Are you seriously judging a wr by his postseason appearances?

Kruunch
03-14-2012, 09:10 AM
Might as well trade Osi too because they won't be able to keep him either. Next year they have to pay Tuck and he is a priority.

Osi needs to be priorty as well. He is to much of an impact player. Tuck, Osi and JPP need to be the core on the D line.

they proved they can win without osi. i know he is good, but we have many options when it comes to de.

When did we do this?

Because we got roflstomped when Osi wasn't in the lineup this year.

@OP: A trade is only good if you're getting equal or better value in return for what you're trading. No one is going to give us a first round pick for Kiwi and he's playing at a first round level for us.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 07:56 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

I was going to bring the facts and post their career numbers, but then i said to myself why waste my time. its funny how someone can type out a long bunch of nonesense that is completely false and act as if they know what they're talking about. I laughed as soon as i read his first two sentences.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 08:08 PM
He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

How many playoff games has mario williams played in? How many playoff games has calvin johnson played in? Football is a team sport. You cannot use playoff wins or appearances as an argument against 1 player, especially if that player is a WR. How many games did larry fritz win his team this season?.. See whee i am going with this? there are 23 other starters on the team.

Last but not least you said it can be argued that kiwi has done more in his career than bandon Marshall. Lol that in itself shows how much you know. Go look up marshals career as a reviver in the NFL.

gmen46
03-14-2012, 08:25 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

My point was, and is, that in determining positional value to a team in terms of compensation, and therefore trade value as well, a quality proven DE often has as much and in some cases more value to a team than a WR. To most teams who have a tradition of winning, at any rate.

Thus, I responded to poster MM who claimed Kiwi would draw no more than a 5th rd pick in a trade because Marshall generated a trade from Bears for two 3rd rd picks. I would not have made the comparison between the two, but Marvelous did, and I responded.

I already acknowledged Marshall is a blue chip receiver. I just don't have much respect for him as a reliable team contributor. He generates impressive stats, yes, but he often does so when it does not benefit his team, so what good is he to them?

He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

That's not even taking into account his anti social behavior, such as his multiple assault charges by multiple girlfriends/wives over several years.

As for Kiwi being " a rotational player for a majority of his career", as you claim. That's an insult not only to him, but to anyone who has watched his play.

Except for his rookie year in 2006, he has been a starter for most of his career.

--2007, starting LB until he went on IR in Week 10 or 11.

--2008, starting DE in place of Osi being on IR for the entire year

--2009, he was "rotational" before starting DE after Week 10 or 11

--2010, starting as LB or DE for 3 games before he went on IR

--2011, starting LB

That's all nice, but I'm not arguing trade value. I'm telling you that Marshall is a much better player than kiwi is and has had a much more successful career.

Are you seriously judging a wr by his postseason appearances?

No, I'm not. I overstated my point with the playoff comments.

What I will say is that comparing a WR to a DE/LB hybrid, as Kiwi has become, is equally a nonsensical statement.

What I was trying to say (unsuccessfully, it appears) is that one player can be of much more value to a team than another player. And value to a team is what should drive a trade, more than raw stats.

Can you honestly state with a straight face that Marshall has brought more value to the Dolphins, or to the Broncos, than Kiwi has to the Giants? (And THAT'S where number of playoff appearances can come into play).

RoanokeFan
03-14-2012, 08:26 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

We may well move him to DE after releasing Tollefson.

Harooni
03-14-2012, 08:41 PM
i think we should keep that option open.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 08:43 PM
Can you honestly state with a straight face that Marshall has brought more value to the Dolphins, or to the Broncos, than Kiwi has to the Giants? (And THAT'S where number of playoff appearances can come into play).

Again there is a flaw in this logic. in the 2 teams you are comparing, one has an elite franshise QB, while the other team doesnt even know who their starter is going into this next season.

In order to make this argument fair you would have to give both players a chance to be on both teams. For example. If We had brandon marshal and the dolphins had kiwi, do you think the phins would have done better? Do you think we would have done worse?

I got love and respect for kiwi, but with all due respect, id give up kiwi if it meant we had brandon marshal, and nicks on the outside with cruz in the slot. Especially if osi is back.. just saying[:|]

Thats how you need to look at it.

gmen46
03-14-2012, 08:47 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

I was going to bring the facts and post their career numbers, but then i said to myself why waste my time. its funny how someone can type out a long bunch of nonesense that is completely false and act as if they know what they're talking about. I laughed as soon as i read his first two sentences.


Coming from a poster like you, who doesn't even attempt to back opinions with any sort of "facts" in your body of work, I take this as a compliment.

As for "a long bunch of nonsense that is false"--what exactly is false about my comments?

Opinions can differ--and ours certainly do. But in order to claim any falsehood (and retain any credibility), you need to challenge exactly what is false and show how it's false.

gmen46
03-14-2012, 09:10 PM
Can you honestly state with a straight face that Marshall has brought more value to the Dolphins, or to the Broncos, than Kiwi has to the Giants? (And THAT'S where number of playoff appearances can come into play).

Again there is a flaw in this logic. in the 2 teams you are comparing, one has an elite franshise QB, while the other team doesnt even know who their starter is going into this next season.

In order to make this argument fair you would have to give both players a chance to be on both teams. For example. If We had brandon marshal and the dolphins had kiwi, do you think the phins would have done better? Do you think we would have done worse?

I got* love and respect for kiwi, but with all due respect, id give up kiwi if it meant we had brandon marshal, and nicks on the outside with cruz in the slot. Especially if osi is back.. just saying[:|]

Thats how you need to look at it.


But that's not real world. And the last I looked, that's what we live in (as do all NFL teams and players), and that's how performances need to be judged.

Fact is, the teams have who they have. It's completely pointless to compare any player's ability as if he played on a different team and with different players. You might as well say if the Earth rotated clockwise, instead of counterclockwise (as it does), the Sun would rise in the West instead of the East. A true statement, but meaningless, yeah?

My opinion, true, but I believe a credible argument can be made--and I'm making it--that Kiwi in the 6 years he's been in the league has had more overall value to the Giants than Marshall has had to the Broncos and the Dolphins in the 6 years HE'S been in the league.

In support of my statement, It's not simply a coincidence that Marshall is on his way to his 3rd team in 7 seasons and that Kiwi remains--for another year, at least--on his one and only team during the same time period.

Think about it. If a player is really all that good, wouldn't a team want to do what it could to KEEP the player, instead of doing what it can to GET RID of a player?

Marshall didn't go to another team--in two different instances--because another team was willing to pay a lot more than his current team. He was traded twice, by two different teams. That doesn't tell you anything about his VALUE to the team?

Great stats, no question. Great value? No.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 09:39 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

I was going to bring the facts and post their career numbers, but then i said to myself why waste my time. its funny how someone can type out a long bunch of nonesense that is completely false and act as if they know what they're talking about. I laughed as soon as i read his first two sentences.


Coming from a poster like you, who doesn't even attempt to back opinions with any sort of "facts" in your body of work, I take this as a compliment.

As for "a long bunch of nonsense that is false"--what exactly is false about my comments?

Opinions can differ--and ours certainly do. But in order to claim any falsehood (and retain any credibility), you need to challenge exactly what is false and show how it's false.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MarsBr00.htm

2007 - 105 catches, 1325 yards receiving.
2008 - 104 catches 1265 yards receiving
2009 - 101 catches 1120 yards receiving

Those were his 3 years starting in Denver...

2010 - 86 catches 1011 receiving
2011 - 81 catches 1214 receiving..

Looks pretty damn productive to me.

I am going to assume hes been to at least 3 probowls..


I didnt want to waste my time looking up his career stats in order to prove a point to someone who doesnt understand football. I trust that from now on when i make a point to counter your argument, you look up on the facts yourself. It would save me the time of having to do this.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 09:57 PM
Kiwi in the 6 years he's been in the league has had more overall value to the Giants than Marshall has had to the Broncos and the Dolphins in the 6 years HE'S been in the league.

In support of my statement, It's not simply a coincidence that Marshall is on his way to his 3rd team in 7 seasons and that Kiwi remains--for another year, at least--on his one and only team during the same time period.

Think about it. If a player is really all that good, wouldn't a team want to do what it could to KEEP the player, instead of doing what it can to GET RID of a player?.

If you think kiwi in the 6 years hes played in the league has played better at his position than brandon marshall has in the years he has played football at his position then this is my last post replying to you. You cant get anywhere in this league without either a good defense or a good QB. the Dolphins have neither, so of course the giants would have won more games than the dolphins.

But back to my original statement. If you think <font color="#0000FF">kiwi in the 6 years hes played in the league has played
better at his position than brandon marshall</font> has in the years he has
played football at his position then this is my last post replying to
you

lawl
03-14-2012, 10:43 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

My point was, and is, that in determining positional value to a team in terms of compensation, and therefore trade value as well, a quality proven DE often has as much and in some cases more value to a team than a WR. To most teams who have a tradition of winning, at any rate.

Thus, I responded to poster MM who claimed Kiwi would draw no more than a 5th rd pick in a trade because Marshall generated a trade from Bears for two 3rd rd picks. I would not have made the comparison between the two, but Marvelous did, and I responded.

I already acknowledged Marshall is a blue chip receiver. I just don't have much respect for him as a reliable team contributor. He generates impressive stats, yes, but he often does so when it does not benefit his team, so what good is he to them?

He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons. How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with him on the team? None? One?

That's not even taking into account his anti social behavior, such as his multiple assault charges by multiple girlfriends/wives over several years.

As for Kiwi being " a rotational player for a majority of his career", as you claim. That's an insult not only to him, but to anyone who has watched his play.

Except for his rookie year in 2006, he has been a starter for most of his career.

--2007, starting LB until he went on IR in Week 10 or 11.

--2008, starting DE in place of Osi being on IR for the entire year

--2009, he was "rotational" before starting DE after Week 10 or 11

--2010, starting as LB or DE for 3 games before he went on IR

--2011, starting LB

That's all nice, but I'm not arguing trade value. I'm telling you that Marshall is a much better player than kiwi is and has had a much more successful career.

Are you seriously judging a wr by his postseason appearances?

No, I'm not. I overstated my point with the playoff comments.

What I will say is that comparing a WR to a DE/LB hybrid, as Kiwi has become, is equally a nonsensical statement.

What I was trying to say (unsuccessfully, it appears) is that one player can be of much more value to a team than another player. And value to a team is what should drive a trade, more than raw stats.

Can you honestly state with a straight face that Marshall has brought more value to the Dolphins, or to the Broncos, than Kiwi has to the Giants? (And THAT'S where number of playoff appearances can come into play).

We won a super bowl with kiwi on ir, just saying.

Judging an.individuals value to a team based on team performance really doesnt make sense to me.

Remember, Brandon Marshall was first traded to the dolphins for two 2nd round picks AND was made the highest paid wr in the league. This was all done under bill parcells watch. Kiwi has never in his entire career garnished anywhere near that value. Hell his career was in limbo just a year ago with that neck/back injury.

The only thing that makes them close is positional value and Marshall off the field behavior. When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

gmen46
03-14-2012, 10:46 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks..

Lol, and what picks would those be?I like kiwi but if we were able to trade him, we would get a 5th at most. definately not 2 picks


he would def get more than a fifth. Hes a defensive end that could also play linebacker....


i dont know. brandon marshal got traded for 2 3rd rounders. kiwi looks like a 5th to me at best.


A DE has more value, in salary scales by position, than a WR.

And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

You don't know what you're talking about--or, you are just trying to provoke honest responses by being a dishonest **** head.

Kiwi was 1st rd pick, and he has produced at a high level, in 2 different positions, throughout his career. He has proven to be a team player, which has it's own intangible value. IF there were a trade (there will not be), involving Kiwi, he would garner at the very least a 2nd rd pick, and possibly a 2nd round plus a role player or a 6th or 7th rd pick.

Kiwi has been on IR twice in his career. Brandon Marshall has been to multiple pro bowls with multiple 1000 yard seasons. Kiwi has been a rotational player for a majority of his career.

Marshall has by far the more distinguished career between the two.

I was going to bring the facts and post their career numbers, but then i said to myself why waste my time. its funny how someone can type out a long bunch of nonesense that is completely false and act as if they know what they're talking about. I laughed as soon as i read his first two sentences.


Coming from a poster like you, who doesn't even attempt to back opinions with any sort of "facts" in your body of work, I take this as a compliment.

As for "a long bunch of nonsense that is false"--what exactly is false about my comments?

Opinions can differ--and ours certainly do. But in order to claim any falsehood (and retain any credibility), you need to challenge exactly what is false and show how it's false.

*http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MarsBr00.htm

2007 - 105 catches, 1325 yards receiving.
2008 - 104 catches 1265 yards receiving
2009 - 101 catches* 1120 yards receiving

Those were his 3 years starting in Denver...

2010 - 86 catches 1011 receiving
2011 - 81 catches* 1214 receiving..

Looks pretty damn productive to me.

I am going to assume hes been to at least 3 probowls..


I didnt want to waste my time looking up his career stats in order to prove a point to someone who doesnt understand football. I trust that from now on when i make a point to counter your argument, you look up on the facts yourself. It would save me the time of having to do this.


Sorry, but you did waste your time.

Your listing of stats is no challenge to any truth (or confirmation of any untruth) of what I stated, especially since I said nothing that a listing of stats would disprove.

You, like some others here, insist on confusing statistics with facts.

They are not the same thing. At all.

I never said anything about Marshall's stats, good, or bad.

In fact, what I did say is that I acknowledge he is a "blue chip" receiver. Since you don't know what I'm referring to with that phrase, I'll spell it out. Whenever "blue chip" is used to characterize an NFL offensive skill player it assumes understanding that he has great statistics, among other attributes.

My point--again--is that stats by themselves, have no bearing upon a specific player's VALUE to a team. And contrasting the value of 2 different players, to 2 different respective teams, is the foundation of my argument comparing Kiwi's worth to the Giants as opposed to Marshall's worth to his 2 teams.

As I asked just previously in a post in this thread, doesn't a team that values a specific player do whatever it can to RETAIN a player instead of doing whatever it can to GET RID of that said player? Can you even grasp that concept?

After 6 years in the league this "blue chip" player has been TRADED not once, but twice. And not traded for any great deal, either. No premier player that would add immediate positive impact to the Broncos or, 2 years later, to the Dolphins. No desperately needed 1st round draft pick was received in exchange for Marshall.

Do you truly believe a player has added any value to a team that can't wait to get rid of him? Twice, by two teams? Two teams, by the way, that had NO other great WR when they traded Marshall. That's how badly they wanted to be rid of him.

Conversely, it would have been so easy for the Giants to let Kiwi go last off season as an actual free agent coming off a potentially career-threatening neck injury, with absolutely no way of determining if he could even play competitively unless they signed him.

But they wanted him enough to risk offering him a short term (2 year, $4 million?) contract in order to allow him to prove his 100% recovery and to raise his FA value next year. As it happened, that risk paid off for the Giants and for Kiwi. That's a definition of "value to the team".

You can list Marshall's stats until your fingers fall off. But that's all they are, stats. The FACT is that 2 teams have enjoyed his stats production but ultimately still did not want him.

But, you're right, I don't understand football. And it's so clear that you do.

Marvelousmik
03-14-2012, 11:54 PM
Sorry, but you did waste your time.

Your listing of stats is no challenge to any truth (or confirmation of
any untruth) of what I stated, especially since I said nothing that a
listing of stats would disprove.





Here is a quote from you in your first post.




it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami.

That being said, i showed you stats from marshall which proves your claim wrong. There is no need to link kiwi's stats because you and i both know who had more<font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000">production</font>.


Off field issues and "potential" value has nothing to do with what both of
them <font color="#0000FF">did on the field</font>, and when it comes down to what both of them <font color="#0000FF">did on the field</font>,
Marshall has<font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000">produced </font>a lot more.

Ones production is judged by what they did on the field. Not at home with their wife, or at a club.


You even said it yourself.



When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

Which means you were wrong about kiwi producing more for the giants than Marshall has for his team/teams. Now that thats out of the way, lets move on to another point.



The main idea of your argument is that kiwi is worth more than brandon marshall. Plain and simple. You are trying to convince me, and probably yourself that if they were both free agents, kiwi would get paid more. Meaning teams in the nfl would give up more for kiwi than they would for brandon marshall.

Marshall got traded for 2 3rd round picks. Since you think kiwi is worth more than two 3rd round picks, what offer would we get if we decided to trade kiwi?

a 3rd and a 2nd?

two 3rds and a 4th?

A second round pick?[:|]


discuss.

gmen46
03-15-2012, 12:57 AM
Sorry, but you did waste your time.

Your listing of stats is no challenge to any truth (or confirmation of
any untruth) of what I stated, especially since I said nothing that a
listing of stats would disprove.





Here is a quote from you in your first post.




it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami.

That being said, i showed you stats from marshall which proves your claim wrong. There is no need to link kiwi's stats because you and i both know who had more<font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000">production</font>.



Off field issues and "potential" value has nothing to do with what both of
them <font color="#0000FF">did on the field</font>, and when it comes down to what both of them <font color="#0000FF">did on the field</font>,
Marshall has<font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000">produced </font>a lot more.

You said it yourself.


When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.


/thread


This is an example of what's known as "talking at cross purposes", or "like talking to a wall".

You actually think comparing receiving stats of a wide receiver vs production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your point?

What exactly would comparing a DE's sacks /tackles/whatever vs a receiver's receiving yards or receptions or TDs even mean? Who does that? GMs? Head coaches? Fantasy Football players?

"Apples to oranges" ring a bell for you?

(By the way, the last "performance on the field" quote you attribute to me, as a way of conclusion, is not even my quote. And, I don't agree with it).

And I have no idea why you throw in allusion to off field issues and "potential" value. Whaa...?

Obviously, you have no clue what I'm trying to say on this topic. I'll take responsibility for not doing a very good job of communicating my point of view regarding this.

I'll just leave it at this----

There are skill players who can put up glossy numbers each year, but do nothing to improve the team's performance and growth as a contending team.

And there are players who may put up "average" numbers, or who play a position that is more difficult to quantify than a "skill" position, yet they are players without whom the team would be noticeably less successful. This is not as easy to measure as a receiver or running back, but has impact on the team.

Marshall is an example of the first.

Kiwi is an example of the second.

Also, I agree with the school of thinking that believes a top of the league defensive line on a football team--and by extension the individuals who comprise that line--is more critical to a championship team than any individual wide receiver. In other words, the team with the best defensive line in the league, but average wide receivers, has a better CHANCE of winning it all than does a team that has a top 10 receiver (and I don't hear anybody claiming Marshall is a top 10 anything) but average defensive line.

Obviously, you don't agree with that thinking, so we will be forever at odds on this.

But the bottom line is my question--which I've asked twice and you have conveniently ignored twice--wouldn't a team that had a player they believed to be one of the best at his position, and therefore of great value to their team, try to do everything in their power to RETAIN that player, instead of doing everything in their power to GET RID of that player?

And doesn't the fact that that situation has occurred with Marshal TWICE in his short career allow you to even consider the remote possibility that Marshall is a seriously flawed NFL player?

lawl
03-15-2012, 01:10 AM
Want to compare how much a team values a player when compared to another?

How about salary?

How about pro bowls?

How about all pro awards?

Your argument is all subjective. You say our team plays better because kiwi is on the field. Well he was busy on ir when we won our 2008 superbowl.

As for your question that you want answered. Great players get traded, especially when a new coaching regime comes to town. Jared Allen, regarded as one of the best DEs in the league was traded. He had a dpoy type year last year, yet his team sucked. Is he an example of the "first" too?

gmen46
03-15-2012, 02:14 AM
Want to compare how much a team values a player when compared to another?

How about salary?

How about pro bowls?

How about all pro awards?

Your argument is all subjective. You say our team plays better because kiwi is on the field. Well he was busy on ir when we won our 2008 superbowl.

As for your question that you want answered. Great players get traded, especially when a new coaching regime comes to town. Jared Allen, regarded as one of the best DEs in the league was traded. He had a dpoy type year last year, yet his team sucked. Is he an example of the "first" too?

Kiwi was missing, on IR, for our SB in 007, so that negates my "subjective" argument concerning Kiwi's worth to the team? Are you serious?

Nicks, Cruz, JPP, Rolle, Boley were all "missing" from our 07 SB team, as well. Does that mean they are not very valuable to us now? Silly of me to ask that, right? So is your remark.

As for Jared being traded to the Vikes, you select the exception to the rule, and make that your argument. Allen was an unusual case. He certainly was not then traded again, 2 years later.

And I challenge your claim that "great players get traded".

In fact, trades of key (ie, "great") players are NOT a significant part of NFL player transactions anymore, and have not been for years, certainly not since the modern FA era began in 1994.

That was one of the reasons players fought so hard for a stronger form of FA in the first place. They resented being treated like chattel.

Very little advantage these days for a team to trade for a high priced player, only to lose him to FA a year or two later.

Name another trade in the past 10 years that equates to the Vikings acquisition of Allen with equivalent impact.

I have no idea why KC wanted to trade Allen, but they did receive a 1st round, two 3rd round picks, and switched 6th rd picks, so it's possible KC was thinking in terms of trying to more quickly improve the team in multiple areas, in addition to a reluctance to resume a long contract dispute with Allen, which had begun the year before the trade.

Even with him as your example, he was traded one time in his 8 years in the league, with no indication he will ever be traded by the Vikings, or anyone, again.

Marshall, after 6 years, traded twice.

And Chicago (ie, Cutler) is so blindly desperate for SOME kind of receiver with talent, they were the ideal partner for Miami.

And this last time by a team that has no other WR worth even a mention, and no QB. (Unless you count Moore as a viable NFL QB; most people don't, nor do Dolphin fans, evidenced last summer by their classless boos of him in training camp). And for two 3rd rd picks, at that.

To compare this Marshall trade to the Allen trade is absurd, not to mention it would be an insult to Allen if he ever heard it.

I live in the Denver area. I witnessed the whole Marshall fiasco. By his 4th season the Broncos did not care about his stats. They wanted him gone. And Miami, as bad as they are, couldn't even wait more than 2 years to get rid of him.

What do you not get?

Marvelousmik
03-15-2012, 03:01 AM
You actually think comparing receiving stats of a wide receiver vs production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your point?

Let me fix this for you.

You actually think comparing receiving <font color="#0000FF">production</font> of a wide receiver vs
production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your
point?

I love how you used the word stats to make it seem as though stats dont show production. Nice try. And yes. It indeed proves my point. Those numbers don't lie. 105 catches and 1300 plus yards in 1 season, and averaging over 1000 yards receving each year means, he caught 105 passes for 1300 + yards and avgeraged over 1000 yards reciving each season. It is what it is.




and doesn't the fact that that situation has occurred with Marshal TWICE
in his short career allow you to even consider the remote possibility
that Marshall is a seriously flawed NFL player?

No. The tape, and the stats dont show it. off of the field maybe, but this is about production. brandon marshall is a better overall player than kiwi. and everyone knows this.

If all of the players voted on the top 100 players in the NFL, kiwi wont be on the list. But you can bet your behind marshal would be there. TO bounced around from team to team but it didnt mean he wasnt a good player. The chargers moved on from brees. the colts released peyton manning. Being traded or released doesnt always mean you arent a good player. Its a business and moving on is part of it.

The patriots are in need of a receiver and a pass rusher. If they had to choose between brandon marshal or kiwi, i am pretty sure they would take brandon marshall on their team. This should not be argured. I hate arguing about obvious things like this. It is a waste of time. Brandon marshall is a better all around player, hes been to multiple probowls, hes at least a top 6 reciever ( and they NFL has a lot of receivers).

His only problem is off field issues. He obviously has problems with his personality, but on the field there is no question who the better overall player is.

"Kiwi has 2 rings.
Larry friz has none.
kiwi has won more playoff games
larry has won less"

"Kiwi has more worth because he won more games and is a DE?
Does kiwi have more worth than calvin johnson too?
Is he worth more than Andre johnson?

Andre johnson just got into the playoffs this year. kiwi has won more games than him.

Just stop it dude.

Marvelousmik
03-15-2012, 04:31 AM
Reading this next quote that i am going to post from you made me truly realize that this argument is going to go no where. I couldn't help but reply to this, and I am going to try and break it down as simple as i can. I pray you have the intelligence to understand why your whole argument is flawed.Please try to read and understand this carfully.



There are skill players who can put up glossy numbers each year, but do
nothing to improve the team's performance and growth as a contending
team.



And there are players who may put up "average" numbers, or who play a
position that is more difficult to quantify than a "skill" position,
yet they are players without whom the team would be noticeably less
successful. This is not as easy to measure as a receiver or running
back, but has impact on the team.



Marshall is an example of the first.



Kiwi is an example of the second.

Here we go..

In the NFL, if you want to win games, you need either an elite QB, or an elite defense. The denver broncos and the dolphins had neither. The giants on the other hand have an elite QB, and a defense that plays elite when it matters. Of course kiwi will win more games if he is on a better overall team. When trying to make a point, you have to look at all variables that go into it. If you cant understand this lets end this debate right here.

Jones drew is a great running back, but he wont get the team anywhere unless they have a great defense or a Good QB. Same goes for adrian peterson.

B-Marshall is a hard worker and he never takes a play off, wither its him blocking up the field or running after the catch. He puts it all out there for the team. Although he probably hasnt experienced a playoff win, he damn sure made the teams hes played for better. If marshall put up the numbers he did with a bad cutler, kyle orton, and matt moore throwing him the ball, then i could imagine if he had eli, brady, or rodgers throwing him passes. If the dolphins didnt have brandon marshal they would have beaten the colts out for andrew luck.

Last but not least DE is probably the easiest position to play in football. You worry about 1 gap. Just contain. Kiwi rotates in and out at LB and DE. marshall is the number 1 guy so all the pressure and double teams are on him and he is on the field all of the time on offense.

gmen46
03-15-2012, 06:37 AM
You actually think comparing receiving stats of a wide receiver vs production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your point?

Let me fix this for you.

You actually think comparing receiving <font color="#0000FF">production</font> of a wide receiver vs
production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your
point?

*I love how you used the word stats to make it seem as though stats dont show production. Nice try. And yes. It indeed proves my point. Those numbers don't lie. 105 catches and 1300 plus yards in 1 season, and averaging over 1000 yards receving each year means, he caught 105 passes for 1300 + yards and avgeraged* over 1000 yards reciving each season. It is what it is.




and doesn't the fact that that situation has occurred with Marshal TWICE
in his short career allow you to even consider the remote possibility
that Marshall is a seriously flawed NFL player?

No. The tape, and the stats dont show it. off of the field maybe, but this is about production. brandon marshall is a better overall player than kiwi. and everyone knows this.

If all of the players voted on the* top 100 players in the NFL, kiwi wont be on the list. But you can bet your behind marshal would be there. TO bounced around from team to team but it didnt mean he wasnt a good player. The chargers moved on from brees. the colts released peyton manning. Being traded or released doesnt always mean you arent a good player. Its a business and moving on is part of it.

The patriots are in need of a receiver and a pass rusher. If they had to choose between brandon marshal or kiwi, i am pretty sure they would take brandon marshall on their team. This should not be argured. I hate arguing about obvious things like this. It is a waste of time. Brandon marshall is a better all around player, hes been to multiple probowls, hes at least a top 6 reciever* ( and they NFL has a lot of receivers).

His only problem is off field issues. He obviously has problems with his personality, but on the field there is no question who the better overall player is.

"Kiwi has 2 rings.
Larry friz has none.
kiwi has won more playoff games
larry has won less"

"Kiwi has more worth because he won more games and is a DE?
Does kiwi have more worth than calvin johnson too?
Is he worth more than Andre johnson?

Andre johnson just got into the playoffs this year. kiwi* has won more games than him.

Just stop it dude.






In the last 2 posts you are all over the place. Not worth anymore time and effort. You and I are coming from 2 different places, so it's impossible to come to any resolution.

I do want to say it's not a good way to make you're argument by claiming I say things I didn't--like the number of wins Kiwi's had vs Marshall, etc has any relevance. I never make arguments like that, and didn't here. You're conflating arguments others may have used regarding other arguments.

Using the respective releases of Peyton and Brees (by Chargers) as a rebuttle to my point regarding Marshall's two-time trades is laughable.

The Colts, with Peyton, after 14 years in the league, facing uncertainty as to whether he will ever play again, with the Colts facing a deadline that determines if they pay Peyton his $28 million roster money and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to select Luck, the consensus "Peyton of the future", did indeed make a business decision.

Brees had just had a serious shoulder surgery, with no guarantee of whether he'd ever be able to play football again, and the Chargers had a #1 overall draft pick (in effect) having sat on the bench his first 2 years, and were faced with the ultimate either/or QB decision. The Chargers went with the healthy #1 pick and let Brees, with a possible career-ending shoulder injury, go.

These are hardly "trades" or run-of-the-mill NFL "business decisions".

And their situations were not even in the same universe as Marshall--this so-called "top 5" WR you claim--who was traded after his 4 years of "elite production", followed by his being traded by his second team, still in desperate need of an elite receiver, after only 2 years.

Bottom line is that you consider stats as the one and only criterion for evaluating a player's value to a team--in fact, you seem not even willing or able to factor in a player's value, just his stats--and I don't.

Value to a team is what's been driving my side of the argument, and you obviously have no consideration for value to a team, just what numbers did the player have.

So, yes, there's no point going further with this.

One more bottom line.

The team who desperately needs a premier DE more than a #1 WR will give up more for Kiwi than they would Marshall. The team who desperately needs a #1 WR more than a premier DE (like the Bears, for example, who had no WR to speak of, but have Peppers as a DE) will give up more for Marshall than they would Kiwi.

It's clear you have no grasp of that concept.

lawl
03-15-2012, 08:42 AM
Want to compare how much a team values a player when compared to another?

How about salary?

How about pro bowls?

How about all pro awards?

Your argument is all subjective. You say our team plays better because kiwi is on the field. Well he was busy on ir when we won our 2008 superbowl.

As for your question that you want answered. Great players get traded, especially when a new coaching regime comes to town. Jared Allen, regarded as one of the best DEs in the league was traded. He had a dpoy type year last year, yet his team sucked. Is he an example of the "first" too?

Kiwi was missing, on IR, for our SB in 007, so that negates my "subjective" argument concerning Kiwi's worth to the team? Are you serious?

Nicks, Cruz, JPP, Rolle, Boley were all "missing" from our 07 SB team, as well. Does that mean they are not very valuable to us now? Silly of me to ask that, right? So is your remark.

As for Jared being traded to the Vikes, you select the exception to the rule, and make that your argument. Allen was an unusual case. He certainly was not then traded again, 2 years later.

And I challenge your claim that "great players get traded".

In fact, trades of key (ie, "great") players are NOT a significant part of NFL player transactions anymore, and have not been for years, certainly not since the modern FA era began in 1994.

That was one of the reasons players fought so hard for a stronger form of FA in the first place. They resented being treated like chattel.

Very little advantage these days for a team to trade for a high priced player, only to lose him to FA a year or two later.

Name another trade in the past 10 years that equates to the Vikings acquisition of Allen with equivalent impact.

I have no idea why KC wanted to trade Allen, but they did receive a 1st round, two 3rd round picks, and switched 6th rd picks, so it's possible KC was thinking in terms of trying to more quickly improve the team in multiple areas, in addition to a reluctance to resume a long contract dispute with Allen, which had begun the year before the trade.

Even with him as your example, he was traded one time in his 8 years in the league, with no indication he will ever be traded by the Vikings, or anyone, again.

Marshall, after 6 years, traded twice.

And Chicago (ie, Cutler) is so blindly desperate for SOME kind of receiver with talent, they were the ideal partner for Miami.

And this last time by a team that has no other WR worth even a mention, and no QB. (Unless you count Moore as a viable NFL QB; most people don't, nor do Dolphin fans, evidenced last summer by their classless boos of him in training camp). And for two 3rd rd picks, at that.

To compare this Marshall trade to the Allen trade is absurd, not to mention it would be an insult to Allen if he ever heard it.

I live in the Denver area. I witnessed the whole Marshall fiasco. By his 4th season the Broncos did not care about his stats. They wanted him gone. And Miami, as bad as they are, couldn't even wait more than 2 years to get rid of him.

What do you not get?

Randy moss to the patriots.

What is there toget? Marshall has had a much more successful career as an individual than kiwi. No matter how you want to judge it by. Kiwi was a free agent and couldn't get better than a 2 year prove it deal. on the other hand, Brandon Marshall was on a team that wanted to trade him and he still garnered 2 2nd round picks AND the highest paying wr contract of the time. Do you ever think kiwi was every worth that much? Of course not.

And before you bring it up, kiwis Value in fa was impacted by his injury. Do you think teams view that as no concern still? And to compare deals of injured guys getting paid better than kiwi this year look no further than the great "prove it" deal that tt got. And rasheen Mathis got 5 million and had barely played for 2 years

GfieldGmen
03-15-2012, 12:00 PM
I was only thinking that we could try and flip Kiwi into 2 draft picks who turn into rotational players (like pass rush specialist DE and run stuffing LB) with rookie contracts that are locked up for the next 3 yrs to keep this formula we have rather then potentially loose Kiwi for nothing.

But after thinking it over its probably better to just keep him and if he leaves he leaves. We could still try to land a DE and LB as possible replacements sometime in this yrs draft just in case.

Andre Branch, Vinny Curry, Jared Crick seem intriguing stat wise anyway and can be possible 2nd-4th rd pick ups.

Marvelousmik
03-15-2012, 12:34 PM
You actually think comparing receiving stats of a wide receiver vs production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your point?

Let me fix this for you.

You actually think comparing receiving <font color="#0000FF">production</font> of a wide receiver vs
production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your
point?

I love how you used the word stats to make it seem as though stats dont show production. Nice try. And yes. It indeed proves my point. Those numbers don't lie. 105 catches and 1300 plus yards in 1 season, and averaging over 1000 yards receving each year means, he caught 105 passes for 1300 + yards and avgeraged over 1000 yards reciving each season. It is what it is.




and doesn't the fact that that situation has occurred with Marshal TWICE
in his short career allow you to even consider the remote possibility
that Marshall is a seriously flawed NFL player?

No. The tape, and the stats dont show it. off of the field maybe, but this is about production. brandon marshall is a better overall player than kiwi. and everyone knows this.

If all of the players voted on the top 100 players in the NFL, kiwi wont be on the list. But you can bet your behind marshal would be there. TO bounced around from team to team but it didnt mean he wasnt a good player. The chargers moved on from brees. the colts released peyton manning. Being traded or released doesnt always mean you arent a good player. Its a business and moving on is part of it.

The patriots are in need of a receiver and a pass rusher. If they had to choose between brandon marshal or kiwi, i am pretty sure they would take brandon marshall on their team. This should not be argured. I hate arguing about obvious things like this. It is a waste of time. Brandon marshall is a better all around player, hes been to multiple probowls, hes at least a top 6 reciever ( and they NFL has a lot of receivers).

His only problem is off field issues. He obviously has problems with his personality, but on the field there is no question who the better overall player is.

"Kiwi has 2 rings.
Larry friz has none.
kiwi has won more playoff games
larry has won less"

"Kiwi has more worth because he won more games and is a DE?
Does kiwi have more worth than calvin johnson too?
Is he worth more than Andre johnson?

Andre johnson just got into the playoffs this year. kiwi has won more games than him.

Just stop it dude.






In the last 2 posts you are all over the place. Not worth anymore time and effort. You and I are coming from 2 different places, so it's impossible to come to any resolution.

I do want to say it's not a good way to make you're argument by claiming I say things I didn't--like the number of wins Kiwi's had vs Marshall, etc has any relevance. I never make arguments like that, and didn't here. You're conflating arguments others may have used regarding other arguments.

Using the respective releases of Peyton and Brees (by Chargers) as a rebuttle to my point regarding Marshall's two-time trades is laughable.

The Colts, with Peyton, after 14 years in the league, facing uncertainty as to whether he will ever play again, with the Colts facing a deadline that determines if they pay Peyton his $28 million roster money and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to select Luck, the consensus "Peyton of the future", did indeed make a business decision.

Brees had just had a serious shoulder surgery, with no guarantee of whether he'd ever be able to play football again, and the Chargers had a #1 overall draft pick (in effect) having sat on the bench his first 2 years, and were faced with the ultimate either/or QB decision. The Chargers went with the healthy #1 pick and let Brees, with a possible career-ending shoulder injury, go.

These are hardly "trades" or run-of-the-mill NFL "business decisions".

And their situations were not even in the same universe as Marshall--this so-called "top 5" WR you claim--who was traded after his 4 years of "elite production", followed by his being traded by his second team, still in desperate need of an elite receiver, after only 2 years.

Bottom line is that you consider stats as the one and only criterion for evaluating a player's value to a team--in fact, you seem not even willing or able to factor in a player's value, just his stats--and I don't.

Value to a team is what's been driving my side of the argument, and you obviously have no consideration for value to a team, just what numbers did the player have.

So, yes, there's no point going further with this.

One more bottom line.

The team who desperately needs a premier DE more than a #1 WR will give up more for Kiwi than they would Marshall. The team who desperately needs a #1 WR more than a premier DE (like the Bears, for example, who had no WR to speak of, but have Peppers as a DE) will give up more for Marshall than they would Kiwi.

It's clear you have no grasp of that concept.







Moving on from peyton and brees were both business decisions. Wither its
an injury the player has, or an off field issue. Either way you put it,
it is a business decision.






not a good way to make you're argument by claiming I say things I
didn't--like the number of wins Kiwi's had vs Marshall, etc has any
relevance.



Well, this is another quote from you.




He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons.
How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with
him on the team? None? One?

You have to win games in order to get into the post season. That being said, i used players like andre johnson, and jones drew as an example of players who dont win much. I can't recall jones ever making it to the playoffs, or his team ever having a good season. This past season was the first time andre ever made it. If you're going to compare playoff appearances, then you are talking about winning.

This is about the 3rd time you contradicted yourself.


The problem with this is that you are comparing two very bad teams (miami &amp; denver) who are, and were at the buttom of their division even before marshall got there, to a team like the Giants who is almost always in the mix for the division title in what is probably still the best division in football. Your argument is very weak.

gmen46
03-15-2012, 07:54 PM
You actually think comparing receiving stats of a wide receiver vs production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your point?

Let me fix this for you.

You actually think comparing receiving <font color="#0000FF">production</font> of a wide receiver vs
production of a defensive player is a credible way to "prove" your
point?

*I love how you used the word stats to make it seem as though stats dont show production. Nice try. And yes. It indeed proves my point. Those numbers don't lie. 105 catches and 1300 plus yards in 1 season, and averaging over 1000 yards receving each year means, he caught 105 passes for 1300 + yards and avgeraged* over 1000 yards reciving each season. It is what it is.




and doesn't the fact that that situation has occurred with Marshal TWICE
in his short career allow you to even consider the remote possibility
that Marshall is a seriously flawed NFL player?

No. The tape, and the stats dont show it. off of the field maybe, but this is about production. brandon marshall is a better overall player than kiwi. and everyone knows this.

If all of the players voted on the* top 100 players in the NFL, kiwi wont be on the list. But you can bet your behind marshal would be there. TO bounced around from team to team but it didnt mean he wasnt a good player. The chargers moved on from brees. the colts released peyton manning. Being traded or released doesnt always mean you arent a good player. Its a business and moving on is part of it.

The patriots are in need of a receiver and a pass rusher. If they had to choose between brandon marshal or kiwi, i am pretty sure they would take brandon marshall on their team. This should not be argured. I hate arguing about obvious things like this. It is a waste of time. Brandon marshall is a better all around player, hes been to multiple probowls, hes at least a top 6 reciever* ( and they NFL has a lot of receivers).

His only problem is off field issues. He obviously has problems with his personality, but on the field there is no question who the better overall player is.

"Kiwi has 2 rings.
Larry friz has none.
kiwi has won more playoff games
larry has won less"

"Kiwi has more worth because he won more games and is a DE?
Does kiwi have more worth than calvin johnson too?
Is he worth more than Andre johnson?

Andre johnson just got into the playoffs this year. kiwi* has won more games than him.

Just stop it dude.






In the last 2 posts you are all over the place. Not worth anymore time and effort. You and I are coming from 2 different places, so it's impossible to come to any resolution.

I do want to say it's not a good way to make you're argument by claiming I say things I didn't--like the number of wins Kiwi's had vs Marshall, etc has any relevance. I never make arguments like that, and didn't here. You're conflating arguments others may have used regarding other arguments.

Using the respective releases of Peyton and Brees (by Chargers) as a rebuttle to my point regarding Marshall's two-time trades is laughable.

The Colts, with Peyton, after 14 years in the league, facing uncertainty as to whether he will ever play again, with the Colts facing a deadline that determines if they pay Peyton his $28 million roster money and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to select Luck, the consensus "Peyton of the future", did indeed make a business decision.

Brees had just had a serious shoulder surgery, with no guarantee of whether he'd ever be able to play football again, and the Chargers had a #1 overall draft pick (in effect) having sat on the bench his first 2 years, and were faced with the ultimate either/or QB decision. The Chargers went with the healthy #1 pick and let Brees, with a possible career-ending shoulder injury, go.

These are hardly "trades" or run-of-the-mill NFL "business decisions".

And their situations were not even in the same universe as Marshall--this so-called "top 5" WR you claim--who was traded after his 4 years of "elite production", followed by his being traded by his second team, still in desperate need of an elite receiver, after only 2 years.

Bottom line is that you consider stats as the one and only criterion for evaluating a player's value to a team--in fact, you seem not even willing or able to factor in a player's value, just his stats--and I don't.

Value to a team is what's been driving my side of the argument, and you obviously have no consideration for value to a team, just what numbers did the player have.

So, yes, there's no point going further with this.

One more bottom line.

The team who desperately needs a premier DE more than a #1 WR will give up more for Kiwi than they would Marshall. The team who desperately needs a #1 WR more than a premier DE (like the Bears, for example, who had no WR to speak of, but have Peppers as a DE) will give up more for Marshall than they would Kiwi.

It's clear you have no grasp of that concept.







Moving on from peyton and brees were both business decisions. Wither its
an injury the player has, or an off field issue. Either way you put it,
it is a business decision.






not a good way to make you're argument by claiming I say things I
didn't--like the number of wins Kiwi's had vs Marshall, etc has any
relevance.



Well, this is another quote from you.




He's been in the league the same time as Kiwi, six seasons.
How many post season games has his Broncos or Dolphins teams played with
him on the team? None? One?

You have to win games in order to get into the post season. That being said, i used players like andre johnson, and jones drew as an example of players who dont win much. I can't recall jones ever making it to the playoffs, or his team ever having a good season. This past season was the first time andre ever made it. If you're going to compare playoff appearances, then you are talking about winning.

This is about the 3rd time you contradicted yourself.


The problem with this is that you are comparing two very bad teams (miami & denver) who are, and were at the buttom of their division even before marshall got there, to a team like the Giants who is almost always in the mix for the division title in what is probably still the best division in football. Your argument is very weak.




I cannot believe that even YOU are as dense as you reveal yourself to be here, but there it is.

I've got --almost--nothing more to say to someone who equates Peyton and Brees' situations to the "hot potato" treatment of Marshall.

Except this---

If you are fired from your job, for whatever reason, causing you to be possibly tainted within the industry of your chosen profession, that's a "business decision" made by the employer.

Conversely, if you leave your current job in order to go to a higher paying job with more benefits, more responsibility, a better job title, and an improved reputation in the industry, that too is a "business decision", one made by you and by your new employer.

Those are not identical "business decisions, and each situation shapes differently the perception of what your colleagues and others in your field have of you.

Obviously, you don't get that distinction. Fine.

You pick out 1 sentence that you can use to verify my self-"contradiction", you then need to explain what you inferred from my statement in order to justify your point (ie, there was no contradiction as stated, you need to explain why you see it that way), and then you say it's "about the 3rd time" I contradict myself.

(By the way, to be fair, I admitted to Lawl, who also challenged me about the "no playoffs" remark, that I overstated a bit to make my point. So, mea culpa. One "overstatement". But it DOES speak to my "lack of team value" judgement of Marshall, just so you know).

Again, if you want to make things up, fine. I understand the need to try to justify the unjustifiable, in order to cling to your point. It's understood about you as a poster on this board.

However, because I can't quite help myself-- The season (2005) before Brandon Marshall was drafted, Broncos were 13-3 and played in the AFC Championship game, losing to the eventual SB Champs, the Steelers.

After Marshall's rookie year (10-6 record), Denver had no winning record the next 3 seasons (and, oh-oh, here I go again! no post season in his 4 years), and Shanahan is fired.

But, hey MARSHALL put up great stats his 4 years in Denver, and that's all that counts, right? Who cares if he doesn't help make his team better, right?

Yeah, Denver sure sounds to me like they were a "very bad team" and were "at the bottom of their division even before Marshall got there".

And MY argument is weak.

AMF.

gmen46
03-15-2012, 08:10 PM
Want to compare how much a team values a player when compared to another?

How about salary?

How about pro bowls?

How about all pro awards?

Your argument is all subjective. You say our team plays better because kiwi is on the field. Well he was busy on ir when we won our 2008 superbowl.

As for your question that you want answered. Great players get traded, especially when a new coaching regime comes to town. Jared Allen, regarded as one of the best DEs in the league was traded. He had a dpoy type year last year, yet his team sucked. Is he an example of the "first" too?

Kiwi was missing, on IR, for our SB in 007, so that negates my "subjective" argument concerning Kiwi's worth to the team? Are you serious?

Nicks, Cruz, JPP, Rolle, Boley were all "missing" from our 07 SB team, as well. Does that mean they are not very valuable to us now? Silly of me to ask that, right? So is your remark.

As for Jared being traded to the Vikes, you select the exception to the rule, and make that your argument. Allen was an unusual case. He certainly was not then traded again, 2 years later.

And I challenge your claim that "great players get traded".

In fact, trades of key (ie, "great") players are NOT a significant part of NFL player transactions anymore, and have not been for years, certainly not since the modern FA era began in 1994.

That was one of the reasons players fought so hard for a stronger form of FA in the first place. They resented being treated like chattel.

Very little advantage these days for a team to trade for a high priced player, only to lose him to FA a year or two later.

Name another trade in the past 10 years that equates to the Vikings acquisition of Allen with equivalent impact.

I have no idea why KC wanted to trade Allen, but they did receive a 1st round, two 3rd round picks, and switched 6th rd picks, so it's possible KC was thinking in terms of trying to more quickly improve the team in multiple areas, in addition to a reluctance to resume a long contract dispute with Allen, which had begun the year before the trade.

Even with him as your example, he was traded one time in his 8 years in the league, with no indication he will ever be traded by the Vikings, or anyone, again.

Marshall, after 6 years, traded twice.

And Chicago (ie, Cutler) is so blindly desperate for SOME kind of receiver with talent, they were the ideal partner for Miami.

And this last time by a team that has no other WR worth even a mention, and no QB. (Unless you count Moore as a viable NFL QB; most people don't, nor do Dolphin fans, evidenced last summer by their classless boos of him in training camp). And for two 3rd rd picks, at that.

To compare this Marshall trade to the Allen trade is absurd, not to mention it would be an insult to Allen if he ever heard it.

I live in the Denver area. I witnessed the whole Marshall fiasco. By his 4th season the Broncos did not care about his stats. They wanted him gone. And Miami, as bad as they are, couldn't even wait more than 2 years to get rid of him.

What do you not get?

Randy moss to the patriots.

What is there toget? Marshall has had a much more successful career as an individual than kiwi. No matter how you want to judge it by. Kiwi was a free agent and couldn't get better than a 2 year prove it deal. on the other hand, Brandon Marshall was on a team that wanted to trade him and he still garnered 2 2nd round picks AND the highest paying wr contract of the time. Do you ever think kiwi was every worth that much? Of course not.

And before you bring it up, kiwis Value in fa was impacted by his injury. Do you think teams view that as no concern still? And to compare deals of injured guys getting paid better than kiwi this year look no further than the great "prove it" deal that tt got. And rasheen Mathis got 5 million and had barely played for 2 years

Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things.

My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick.

This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it?

My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams.

Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player.

One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.

lawl
03-15-2012, 08:31 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players ofother positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


</P>

Marvelousmik
03-15-2012, 09:07 PM
But, hey MARSHALL put up great stats his 4 years in Denver, and that's all that counts, right? Who cares if he doesn't help make his team better, right?

Yeah, Denver sure sounds to me like they were a "very bad team" and were "at the bottom of their division even before Marshall got there".

And MY argument is weak.

AMF.


Okay, since you like to ignore my key points, i am going to take this 1 point at a time.

Point 1 : Marshall had 102 catches for 1325 yards. He averaged 13 yards per catch, had 7 tochdowns and went to the pro bowl.

My question for you is, what should have marshall done in order to "help his team win"?

<table class="data-table1" summary="Career Stats For Brandon Marshall" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td>

<td>
</td>

<td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

giantsfan420
03-15-2012, 09:08 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

gmen46
03-15-2012, 09:09 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

??? ?????????????,????????????????,??????????????

gmen46
03-15-2012, 09:19 PM
But, hey MARSHALL put up great stats his 4 years in Denver, and that's all that counts, right? Who cares if he doesn't help make his team better, right?

Yeah, Denver sure sounds to me like they were a "very bad team" and were "at the bottom of their division even before Marshall got there".

And MY argument is weak.

AMF.


Okay, since you like to ignore my key points, i am going to take this 1 point at a time.

Point 1 : Marshall had 102 catches for 1325 yards. He averaged 13 yards per catch, had 7 tochdowns and went to the pro bowl.

My question for you is, what should have marshall done in order to "help his team win"?

<table class="data-table1" summary="Career Stats For Brandon Marshall" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td>

<td>
</td>

<td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

???????,????? ??????????? ?????????????????????

lawl
03-15-2012, 09:58 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

lawl
03-15-2012, 10:00 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

??? ?????????????,????????????????,??????????????

Value to respective teams. Every blue chip wide receiver in the league helps their team moreso than any 43 slb in the league.

giantsfan420
03-15-2012, 10:08 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

i should have clarified kiwi as DE, i thought the 6 pressures and 1 and a 1/2 sacks would clarify it my bad. i think Kiwi is playing OLB bc we want our best guys to see the field and with jpp tuck and osi there's no other way. and that also says something to the versatility of Kiwi where out of those 3 de's, he was able to actually play LB even tho he showed signs of being a dominant DE.

and also, he makes more than most figure. I remember being a little bit startled by kwiw's actual contract. i could be mistaken by i think he's making like 5 mil or 6 mil a season but thats off topic anyways.

and kiwi/marshall aside. which position goes more to helping a team win if both positions have a big day?
a wr with lets 7 catches, 100 yards, and a td

or

a de with 6 pressures, 2 sacks?

i'd say DE bc a WR could have 2 or 3 catches a drive and those drives still do nothing where as ONE pressure or sack can essentially end a drive or cause a turnover.

but my whole point in jumping in this debate is that I think Kiwi is WAY more valuable than a 5th round pick.

lawl
03-15-2012, 10:14 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

i should have clarified kiwi as DE, i thought the 6 pressures and 1 and a 1/2 sacks would clarify it my bad. i think Kiwi is playing OLB bc we want our best guys to see the field and with jpp tuck and osi there's no other way. and that also says something to the versatility of Kiwi where out of those 3 de's, he was able to actually play LB even tho he showed signs of being a dominant DE.

and also, he makes more than most figure. I remember being a little bit startled by kwiw's actual contract. i could be mistaken by i think he's making like 5 mil or 6 mil a season but thats off topic anyways.

and kiwi/marshall aside. which position goes more to helping a team win if both positions have a big day?
a wr with lets 7 catches, 100 yards, and a td

or

a de with 6 pressures, 2 sacks?

i'd say DE bc a WR could have 2 or 3 catches a drive and those drives still do nothing where as ONE pressure or sack can essentially end a drive or cause a turnover.

but my whole point in jumping in this debate is that I think Kiwi is WAY more valuable than a 5th round pick.


I think we agree on all points.

giantsfan420
03-15-2012, 10:18 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

i should have clarified kiwi as DE, i thought the 6 pressures and 1 and a 1/2 sacks would clarify it my bad. i think Kiwi is playing OLB bc we want our best guys to see the field and with jpp tuck and osi there's no other way. and that also says something to the versatility of Kiwi where out of those 3 de's, he was able to actually play LB even tho he showed signs of being a dominant DE.

and also, he makes more than most figure. I remember being a little bit startled by kwiw's actual contract. i could be mistaken by i think he's making like 5 mil or 6 mil a season but thats off topic anyways.

and kiwi/marshall aside. which position goes more to helping a team win if both positions have a big day?
a wr with lets 7 catches, 100 yards, and a td

or

a de with 6 pressures, 2 sacks?

i'd say DE bc a WR could have 2 or 3 catches a drive and those drives still do nothing where as ONE pressure or sack can essentially end a drive or cause a turnover.

but my whole point in jumping in this debate is that I think Kiwi is WAY more valuable than a 5th round pick.


I think we agree on all points.

cool, then what r u and gmen debating?

lawl
03-15-2012, 10:27 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

i should have clarified kiwi as DE, i thought the 6 pressures and 1 and a 1/2 sacks would clarify it my bad. i think Kiwi is playing OLB bc we want our best guys to see the field and with jpp tuck and osi there's no other way. and that also says something to the versatility of Kiwi where out of those 3 de's, he was able to actually play LB even tho he showed signs of being a dominant DE.

and also, he makes more than most figure. I remember being a little bit startled by kwiw's actual contract. i could be mistaken by i think he's making like 5 mil or 6 mil a season but thats off topic anyways.

and kiwi/marshall aside. which position goes more to helping a team win if both positions have a big day?
a wr with lets 7 catches, 100 yards, and a td

or

a de with 6 pressures, 2 sacks?

i'd say DE bc a WR could have 2 or 3 catches a drive and those drives still do nothing where as ONE pressure or sack can essentially end a drive or cause a turnover.

but my whole point in jumping in this debate is that I think Kiwi is WAY more valuable than a 5th round pick.


I think we agree on all points.

cool, then what r u and gmen debating?

Couple things.

He said kiwi has had a better career. He said kiwi provides more value to our team than Marshall does to his.

Marvelousmik
03-15-2012, 10:42 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</p>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players ofother positions. </p>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</p>


</p>

??? ?????????????,????????????????,??????????????

am i missing something here? i see Chinese or Japanese symbols instead of english words.

gmen46
03-15-2012, 10:44 PM
Again, as with my dialog with Marvelous, you and I are talking about two ENTIRELY different things. My original post in this thread was in response to MM's casual comment that, since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks from Bears that Kiwi--if traded this year--would secure no more than a 5th rd pick. This is a comment that addresses VALUE TO A TEAM, pure and simple. How can anyone (well, obviously you and Mik can) actually believe they can have a relevant and meaningful discussion comparing the quality of play of a WR vs a DE? Why don't we compare a QB and a DL and argue about which one is a better player, while we're at it? My argument has all along (although I admit to getting side tracked a bit in the process) been about the perceived VALUE of Kiwi and Marshall to their respective teams. Your argument (as has Mik's) has been about the quality of play, as measured by stats, of each player. One of us is speaking Russian and the other is speaking Chinese. Short of buying the Rosetta Stone CDs and learning the language of each other, we're done.</P>


The quality of play is compared by positions all the time. Not just by me. Any top 50 or 100 list made by any multitude of media outlets does so. Every year a Hall of Fame class is inducted there is a process of weeding out players by where they are compared to players of different positions. Any time a player is drafted and is said to be the "best player available" is again, graded compared to players of*other positions. </P>


I am talking about perceived value. I have provided much more evidence of how much value these players provide their team.*Marshall gets paid much more than Kiwi AND he got his latest contract before Kiwi did. Kiwi was even a free agent. Atleast two teams feel like Marshall is worth 9 million a year. NO team, I repeat NO team values Kiwi at 9 million dollars as of just one year ago. That is how much more Brandon Marshall is valued.</P>


*</P>

this flawed tho bc a lot of wr's are valued at 9 mil like garcon etc. while the top OLB's dont make near that per year.

that is like what gmen is saying, if a qb is making 5 mil as a back up, is that backup qb more valuable to a team than osi who is making 4 mil a year??

i said this before but i think it got lost in the convo, supposed marshall has a big day and kiwi has an equally big day, which players performance goes farther to a team winning? i'd say if kiwi is getting 6 pressures and 1 1/2 sacks, thats more likely to our team winning than marshall having 8 catches and a td...its all subjective anyways.

but i think its a lil underestimating kiwi by saying we'd get a 5th for him...i could see a team offering up a 3rd heck even a 2nd if he has a solid season like last year

Olb in a 43 is probably the least important position in a 43 defense. Especially strong side. Kiwi's true value and most of his impact comes when his hand is in the dirt. However, kiwis snaps were drastically limited on the dl at the end of the year. So with all of that said. A big day for kiwi playing olb for us is not as impactful as a big day for a wide receiver. Did kiwi even have any great games this year? But I will clarify, I do believe that kiwi can provide much more value to another team when compared to us as he would be playing a much more valuable position. Whether it be 43 end or 34 olb.

Now to your analogy comparing a back up QB to osi and trying to relate it to my point:

1. Osi's contract is outdated and he definitely makes less than what he could on the open market.

2. just last year kiwi was on the open market and got a small two year deal. On the other hand Marshall never hit the open market yet two teams were willing to trade a total of two second round picks and two third round picks AND then on top of that still pay him 9 million a year.

Kiwi was in a position to get paid more than Marshall but because he wasn't as impactful of a player he didn't come anywhere near the contract that Marshall has.

Brandon Marshall is the higher valued player and it is evidenced by what teams have sacrificed to get him on their team. Teams could have had kiwi for the same or even higher pricetag as Marshall without having to give up any picks, but NO team was willing to do so.

i should have clarified kiwi as DE, i thought the 6 pressures and 1 and a 1/2 sacks would clarify it my bad. i think Kiwi is playing OLB bc we want our best guys to see the field and with jpp tuck and osi there's no other way. and that also says something to the versatility of Kiwi where out of those 3 de's, he was able to actually play LB even tho he showed signs of being a dominant DE.

and also, he makes more than most figure. I remember being a little bit startled by kwiw's actual contract. i could be mistaken by i think he's making like 5 mil or 6 mil a season but thats off topic anyways.

and kiwi/marshall aside. which position goes more to helping a team win if both positions have a big day?
a wr with lets 7 catches, 100 yards, and a td

or

a de with 6 pressures, 2 sacks?

i'd say DE bc a WR could have 2 or 3 catches a drive and those drives still do nothing where as ONE pressure or sack can essentially end a drive or cause a turnover.

but my whole point in jumping in this debate is that I think Kiwi is WAY more valuable than a 5th round pick.


I think we agree on all points.

cool, then what r u and gmen debating?

Couple things.

He said kiwi has had a better career. He said kiwi provides more value to our team than Marshall does to his.

NO to your first point. YOU are the one insisting on comparing "better careers". Must I resort to my Chinese again?

And yes to your second point. Kiwi does. And Marshall doesn't. But you'll never get past the shiny object of stats, so you will never understand. A team is more than a collection of individuals.

I'd have thought after watching the Cowboys meltdown of the past 4 years would have taught you that.

Evidently not.

Marvelousmik
03-16-2012, 02:08 AM
Kiwi does. And Marshall doesn't. But you'll never get past the shiny object of stats, so you will never understand. A team is more than a collection of individuals.

I'd have thought after watching the Cowboys meltdown of the past 4 years would have taught you that.

Evidently not.

This is your logic.

Kiwi is worth more to the giants than brandon marshall was to denver or miami because kiwi won more games with the giants than marshall did with those teams. In spite of kiwi being injured for most of his career, and in spite of the giants having the better overall players.

Kiwi is worth more to the giants than jones drew is to the jags.. How many playoff games has jones drew been in?

gmen46
03-16-2012, 05:12 AM
Kiwi does. And Marshall doesn't. But you'll never get past the shiny object of stats, so you will never understand. A team is more than a collection of individuals.

I'd have thought after watching the Cowboys meltdown of the past 4 years would have taught you that.

Evidently not.

This is your logic.

Kiwi is worth more to the giants than brandon marshall was to denver or miami because kiwi won more games with the giants than marshall did with those teams. In spite of kiwi being injured for most of his career, and in spite of the giants having the better overall players.

Kiwi is worth more to the giants than jones drew is to the jags..* How many playoff games has jones drew been in?


You keep bringing up the "games won" trope as an example of my "weak" argument.

You are debating with yourself regarding this point.

Except for my single question concerning number of post season games Marshall has played in during his 6 year career (zero is the answer) as an example of his inability to help enable his teams to raise their level of play, I have not referred to number of games won by Marshall's teams.

And you keep referring to other players on other teams that have no relevance to your point or mine.

Having said that, MJD IS worth more to the Jags than Marshall has been to his teams. I've explained why I believe that with Kiwi, and it applies to MJD. It does not apply to Marshall.

I think that about MJD because he has become the face of the franchise. He has symbolized everything--such as it is--that is good about the Jags, and who gives at least something for Jags fans to be proud of as fans. He gives them the hope and belief that "if the Jags would bring in a decent QB and add a few more key pieces, we can have a champion" Whether that's true or not in reality, what IS true is that MJD is the Jags, right now.

Marshall has not--after 6 years in the league--symbolized any of that for fans of 2 different teams.

In fact, the FO of those 2 different teams have eventually come to believe that their respective teams will be better WITHOUT Marshall.

And now he's poised to disappoint a 3rd fan base. Chicago, no less.

You don't get it. I understand that. Stats are the only thing that determines a player's worth to a team, in your opinion.

I disagree with that.

To me a key player, a true star player, adds much more to his team than impressive stats.

As I said to Lawl, the three of us are speaking in 2 different languages (thus my previous response in Chinese). Interestingly, I get the same argument from you whether I respond in Chinese or English.

And stop it, already, with the "Kiwi being injured most of his career" bull crap. This myth comes up a lot from selected posters who think like you.

In 6 seasons he has missed games in two--two--seasons.

Broke his leg 10th game of 07, and had a disc bulging in his neck in 2010--which was not even necessarily accredited to football--god forbid, he allowed his disc to bulge.

As for Kiwi's value to the team. If you look at just the 2008 season, alone, that is but one example of how he added value. Our starting Pro Bowl left DE goes on IR before the season begins, and Kiwi--who had not played DE in 1 and a half years, and who had prepared that off season as LB, stepped into his old role of DE, as a starter, and did not miss a beat. In fact, our defense was measurably better than in 2007 (until they all got beaten down by mid-December and collapsed).

The fact that he has started at various times as DE, then LB, then back to DE, and then under Fewell's coaching, as DE AND LB in the same games most of the time, keeping him in games longer than any other individual defensive player, except JPP some games--screams "a very valuable player".

But you don't see that as having, or adding, any value to the team.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Giants organization doesn't agree with you.

??,????????

lawl
03-16-2012, 08:26 AM
And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

Here you say kiwi has produced more (arguably). If he's produced more then that means he's had a better career.

You also say Brandon Marshall has been unreliable and uneven in his production.

To justify this you've conjured up some fantastical, and rather arbitrary argument that by him catching balls, scoring touchdowns, and gaining yardage isn't helping his team as much as kiwi has helped us by spending about 20 games of his career on ir, starting for one full season at de, and then this past season playing the least valuable position on the field, strongside linebacker.

No hablo ingles.

Marvelousmik
03-16-2012, 01:15 PM
And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

Here you say kiwi has produced more (arguably). If he's produced more then that means he's had a better career.

You also say Brandon Marshall has been unreliable and uneven in his production.

To justify this you've conjured up some fantastical, and rather arbitrary argument that by him catching balls, scoring touchdowns, and gaining yardage isn't helping his team as much as kiwi has helped us by spending about 20 games of his career on ir, starting for one full season at de, and then this past season playing the least valuable position on the field, strongside linebacker.

No hanbla ingles.

+1





This guy just doesn't get it. It is either that or he is in denial. You
know when someone holds on to an argument so long, and does not want to
admit that they're wrong that they start actually believing they're
right?





His arguments are weak, he contradicts his self, and he never backs his arguments up with facts.








Fact number 1:





To produce is to bring forth or yield. If I Manufactured cars, and i made and

sold 7 cars per week for 2 weeks straight, how many cars did
i produce? In order to find out i would have to add up the number of
cars i made, and what ever the sum is, will be how much i
produced in those 2 weeks.





This same logic goes for football. If you want to know how much brandon
marshal produced for Miami, you would have to add up everything he
did on the field. If you were to Add up what marshal has done on the field, and compare it to what kiwi has done on the field as a whole, the
last time i checked, a quote from you states:



When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

That being said, I just have 1 more question for you. Please answer me this.

If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?

Ladder27
03-16-2012, 01:55 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.



We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line & or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.






Yea lets just trade Kiwi the one guy that can play multi roles. You Sir are ******ed.

gmen46
03-16-2012, 06:21 PM
And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

Here you say kiwi has produced more (arguably). If he's produced more then that means he's had a better career.

You also say Brandon Marshall has been unreliable and uneven in his production.

To justify this you've conjured up some fantastical, and rather arbitrary argument that by him catching balls, scoring touchdowns, and gaining yardage isn't helping his team as much as kiwi has helped us by spending about 20 games of his career on ir, starting for one full season at de, and then this past season playing the least valuable position on the field, strongside linebacker.

No hanbla ingles.

+1





This guy just doesn't get it. It is either that or he is in denial. You
know when someone holds on to* an argument so long, and does not want to
admit that they're wrong that they start actually believing they're
right?





*His arguments are weak, he contradicts his self, and he never backs his arguments up with facts.








Fact number 1:





To produce is to bring forth or yield. If I Manufactured cars, and i made and

sold 7 cars per week for 2 weeks straight, how many cars did
i produce? In order to find out i would have to add up the number of
cars i made, and what ever the sum is, will be how much i
produced in those 2 weeks.





This same logic goes for football. If you want to know how much brandon
marshal produced for Miami, you would have to add up everything he
did on the field. If you were to Add up what marshal has done on the field, and compare it to what kiwi has done on the field as a whole, the
last time i checked,* a quote from you states:



When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

That being said, I just have 1 more question for you. Please answer me this.

If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?


As I said, multiple times, we are not talking about the same thing. At all.

For you, it's all about what you call "production" and your cofusion of "production", which is quantitative (ie, measurable) with value to a team.

In fact, the concept or word "value" never has entered into your argument, and apparently means nothing to you.

My argument, since my first through my last post, is that they are not necessarily the same, and that the player who provides more value to a team trumps a player who may be "more productive" but who adds little or no value to a team.

For you, since you are incapable of seeing the distinction, this means nothing. To me, it is everything.

Let's look at your "Fact no. 1"--which is no "fact" at all, but a seriously flawed analogy--

Yes, you may look productive on the surface. You make and sell 7 cars a week for 2 weeks. And the car LOOKS fabulous. It's body is that of a red Ferrari. Nice!

Your boss and your colleagues are impressed. You even get a bonus for exceeding output of any other colleague during that 2 week period. Great job!

Until 6 of the 14 cars are returned to your company because in your haste you forgot to install one small, but crucial, component that enables the car to, you know, actually move for a sustained period of time, not just long enough to drive off delivery trucks onto the dealer's lot, and from the dealer to the buyers' house.

A "manufacturer's defect".

Full refund to the (very angry) buyers. Pissed off dealers.

A small thing. Unnoticed by everyone, even Quality Control at the plant, until the happy and proud new owners attempted to actually drive the car, as opposed to admiring it in the driveway.

Now, not only has your company had to take back the defective cars and lose their already budgeted revenue, but new additional costs are required to investigate, repair or replace the defective part(s), and then to ship and market them again.

All this adds to the cost and reduces the profit of those cars.

(I bet your boss regrets that bonus he gave you, eh? Maybe he even demands it be returned also?)

Now, one of your colleagues, a solid, reliable worker the management values, but sees as just another average employee, and who alas works a bit slower than you, in the same time frame made and sold only 5 cars a week for 2 weeks.

But none of them are recalled, because they were all built correctly, to specifications. No customer complaints. Not only that, but your employer's CEO receives letters of praise and gratitude, there is word-of-mouth praise from these customers, who tell their family and friends and recommend they buy their next cars from your company.

Meanwhile, the customers who returned the 6 built by you have written negative letters to their newspaper, contacted Better Business Bureau, called the CEO directly to complain, and can't tell enough family and friends about how crappy your company's cars are.

Between you and your colleague, who do you think your employer values more, now?

This is not an analogy I would have picked, but it's your analogy.

I'm confident this will still make no sense to you, because, as I've said before, we are speaking in different languages and apparently have completely different values.

If you want to appraise Marshall's real value to first Denver, and then Miami, you will note his greatest value to them, respectively, was ultimately the trade value he garnered for each team, as opposed to "everything he did on the field".

The question about him now is, will the Bears be the last to be fooled and thus be stuck with Marshall, or will there be one more team that can be suckered into taking him, for two 5th rd picks this time?

lawl
03-16-2012, 06:36 PM
And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

Here you say kiwi has produced more (arguably). If he's produced more then that means he's had a better career.

You also say Brandon Marshall has been unreliable and uneven in his production.

To justify this you've conjured up some fantastical, and rather arbitrary argument that by him catching balls, scoring touchdowns, and gaining yardage isn't helping his team as much as kiwi has helped us by spending about 20 games of his career on ir, starting for one full season at de, and then this past season playing the least valuable position on the field, strongside linebacker.

No hanbla ingles.

+1





This guy just doesn't get it. It is either that or he is in denial. You
know when someone holds on to* an argument so long, and does not want to
admit that they're wrong that they start actually believing they're
right?





*His arguments are weak, he contradicts his self, and he never backs his arguments up with facts.








Fact number 1:





To produce is to bring forth or yield. If I Manufactured cars, and i made and

sold 7 cars per week for 2 weeks straight, how many cars did
i produce? In order to find out i would have to add up the number of
cars i made, and what ever the sum is, will be how much i
produced in those 2 weeks.





This same logic goes for football. If you want to know how much brandon
marshal produced for Miami, you would have to add up everything he
did on the field. If you were to Add up what marshal has done on the field, and compare it to what kiwi has done on the field as a whole, the
last time i checked,* a quote from you states:



When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

That being said, I just have 1 more question for you. Please answer me this.

If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?


As I said, multiple times, we are not talking about the same thing. At all.

For you, it's all about what you call "production" and your cofusion of "production", which is quantitative (ie, measurable) with value to a team.

In fact, the concept or word "value" never has entered into your argument, and apparently means nothing to you.

My argument, since my first through my last post, is that they are not necessarily the same, and that the player who provides more value to a team trumps a player who may be "more productive" but who adds little or no value to a team.

For you, since you are incapable of seeing the distinction, this means nothing. To me, it is everything.

Let's look at your "Fact no. 1"--which is no "fact" at all, but a seriously flawed analogy--

Yes, you may look productive on the surface. You make and sell 7 cars a week for 2 weeks. And the car LOOKS fabulous. It's body is that of a red Ferrari. Nice!

Your boss and your colleagues are impressed. You even get a bonus for exceeding output of any other colleague during that 2 week period. Great job!

Until 6 of the 14 cars are returned to your company because in your haste you forgot to install one small, but crucial, component that enables the car to, you know, actually move for a sustained period of time, not just long enough to drive off delivery trucks onto the dealer's lot, and from the dealer to the buyers' house.

A "manufacturer's defect".

Full refund to the (very angry) buyers. Pissed off dealers.

A small thing. Unnoticed by everyone, even Quality Control at the plant, until the happy and proud new owners attempted to actually drive the car, as opposed to admiring it in the driveway.

Now, not only has your company had to take back the defective cars and lose their already budgeted revenue, but new additional costs are required to investigate, repair or replace the defective part(s), and then to ship and market them again.

All this adds to the cost and reduces the profit of those cars.

(I bet your boss regrets that bonus he gave you, eh? Maybe he even demands it be returned also?)

Now, one of your colleagues, a solid, reliable worker the management values, but sees as just another average employee, and who alas works a bit slower than you, in the same time frame made and sold only 5 cars a week for 2 weeks.

But none of them are recalled, because they were all built correctly, to specifications. No customer complaints. Not only that, but your employer's CEO receives letters of praise and gratitude, there is word-of-mouth praise from these customers, who tell their family and friends and recommend they buy their next cars from your company.

Meanwhile, the customers who returned the 6 built by you have written negative letters to their newspaper, contacted Better Business Bureau, called the CEO directly to complain, and can't tell enough family and friends about how crappy your company's cars are.

Between you and your colleague, who do you think your employer values more, now?

This is not an analogy I would have picked, but it's your analogy.

I'm confident this will still make no sense to you, because, as I've said before, we are speaking in different languages and apparently have completely different values.

If you want to appraise Marshall's real value to first Denver, and then Miami, you will note his greatest value to them, respectively, was ultimately the trade value he garnered for each team, as opposed to "everything he did on the field".

The question about him now is, will the Bears be the last to be fooled and thus be stuck with Marshall, or will there be one more team that can be suckered into taking him, for two 5th rd picks this time?

Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture.

The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services.

These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year.

gmen46
03-16-2012, 08:41 PM
And it can be argued Kiwi has produced more for us during his career than Marshall has with Denver and/or Miami. Marshall is a blue chip WR, according to many, but he has been consistently unreliable and uneven in his production throughout his career.

Here you say kiwi has produced more (arguably). If he's produced more then that means he's had a better career.

You also say Brandon Marshall has been unreliable and uneven in his production.

To justify this you've conjured up some fantastical, and rather arbitrary argument that by him catching balls, scoring touchdowns, and gaining yardage isn't helping his team as much as kiwi has helped us by spending about 20 games of his career on ir, starting for one full season at de, and then this past season playing the least valuable position on the field, strongside linebacker.

No hanbla ingles.

+1





This guy just doesn't get it. It is either that or he is in denial. You
know when someone holds on to* an argument so long, and does not want to
admit that they're wrong that they start actually believing they're
right?





*His arguments are weak, he contradicts his self, and he never backs his arguments up with facts.








Fact number 1:





To produce is to bring forth or yield. If I Manufactured cars, and i made and

sold 7 cars per week for 2 weeks straight, how many cars did
i produce? In order to find out i would have to add up the number of
cars i made, and what ever the sum is, will be how much i
produced in those 2 weeks.





This same logic goes for football. If you want to know how much brandon
marshal produced for Miami, you would have to add up everything he
did on the field. If you were to Add up what marshal has done on the field, and compare it to what kiwi has done on the field as a whole, the
last time i checked,* a quote from you states:



When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

That being said, I just have 1 more question for you. Please answer me this.

If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?


As I said, multiple times, we are not talking about the same thing. At all.

For you, it's all about what you call "production" and your cofusion of "production", which is quantitative (ie, measurable) with value to a team.

In fact, the concept or word "value" never has entered into your argument, and apparently means nothing to you.

My argument, since my first through my last post, is that they are not necessarily the same, and that the player who provides more value to a team trumps a player who may be "more productive" but who adds little or no value to a team.

For you, since you are incapable of seeing the distinction, this means nothing. To me, it is everything.

Let's look at your "Fact no. 1"--which is no "fact" at all, but a seriously flawed analogy--

Yes, you may look productive on the surface. You make and sell 7 cars a week for 2 weeks. And the car LOOKS fabulous. It's body is that of a red Ferrari. Nice!

Your boss and your colleagues are impressed. You even get a bonus for exceeding output of any other colleague during that 2 week period. Great job!

Until 6 of the 14 cars are returned to your company because in your haste you forgot to install one small, but crucial, component that enables the car to, you know, actually move for a sustained period of time, not just long enough to drive off delivery trucks onto the dealer's lot, and from the dealer to the buyers' house.

A "manufacturer's defect".

Full refund to the (very angry) buyers. Pissed off dealers.

A small thing. Unnoticed by everyone, even Quality Control at the plant, until the happy and proud new owners attempted to actually drive the car, as opposed to admiring it in the driveway.

Now, not only has your company had to take back the defective cars and lose their already budgeted revenue, but new additional costs are required to investigate, repair or replace the defective part(s), and then to ship and market them again.

All this adds to the cost and reduces the profit of those cars.

(I bet your boss regrets that bonus he gave you, eh? Maybe he even demands it be returned also?)

Now, one of your colleagues, a solid, reliable worker the management values, but sees as just another average employee, and who alas works a bit slower than you, in the same time frame made and sold only 5 cars a week for 2 weeks.

But none of them are recalled, because they were all built correctly, to specifications. No customer complaints. Not only that, but your employer's CEO receives letters of praise and gratitude, there is word-of-mouth praise from these customers, who tell their family and friends and recommend they buy their next cars from your company.

Meanwhile, the customers who returned the 6 built by you have written negative letters to their newspaper, contacted Better Business Bureau, called the CEO directly to complain, and can't tell enough family and friends about how crappy your company's cars are.

Between you and your colleague, who do you think your employer values more, now?

This is not an analogy I would have picked, but it's your analogy.

I'm confident this will still make no sense to you, because, as I've said before, we are speaking in different languages and apparently have completely different values.

If you want to appraise Marshall's real value to first Denver, and then Miami, you will note his greatest value to them, respectively, was ultimately the trade value he garnered for each team, as opposed to "everything he did on the field".

The question about him now is, will the Bears be the last to be fooled and thus be stuck with Marshall, or will there be one more team that can be suckered into taking him, for two 5th rd picks this time?

Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture.

The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services.

These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year.

Actually, I HAVE provided just reasoning. You just don't like it or agree with it or maybe just don't understand it

Your "proof" argument is to keep returning to "Marshall is getting $9 million a year and Kiwi doesn't, so Marshall is clearly worth more than Kiwi".

And you seriously compare a contract of a player who was coming off a career-threatening SPINAL NECK injury, whose football future would be in question for ANYONE, to that of a healthy WR. THAT'S your "proof" of who is more valuable to his team.

You talk of "real life events" regarding their respective contracts.

If it's true that "at least two teams have been willing to pay Marshall $9 million a year and give up draft picks for his services", it is equally true that 2 teams have been ultimately UNwilling to continue paying Marshall his $9 million, and have REQUIRED draft picks for him. THAT's your real life event.

Ever hear of "buyer's remorse"? Look it up in the dictionary. It says "see Brandon Marshall for definition".

But the main point is that the two of you continue to assume that number of yards caught and amount of dollar compensation is the one and only true criterion for assessing a player's "value" to a team.

It is not.

In your world, Mario Williams BY DEFINITION is all of a sudden the best defender EVER in the history of the league, because he now has the largest dollar contract for any defender in the history of the NFL.

He is not the best defender in the league today, let alone the best DE or LB today, and certainly not in the history of the NFL.

This not my "pure conjecture".

As just one example of an ex player who thinks the Bills made a bad deal is Brian Baldinger (bless his heart) who said last night that Mario is not a game changer, that he's not the game changer that JPP is.

But in your world Williams MUST be a better defender than JPP is, and MUST be of more value to the Bills than JPP is to the Giants. He MUST be, because the Bills said so with their 100 million contract.

Teams overpay a given player all the time.

A player's salary--by itself--has no ABSOLUTE relation to that player's actual, real value to his team. It has a relation to what the MARKET is any given year for a position, and also to how DESPERATE a given team is (say, the Bills, or Tampa Bay for example) to j*** up its fan base, not to what a team's true valuation is of that player.

Of course, your next argument will center around the new contract of Calvin Johnson or last year's Fitzgerald contract. And that will be because you don't see those contracts for what they are--

A) Possibly over payment and/or

B) Justified because those 2 are exceptions to the rule, and they alone represent THE reason fans will pay big bucks to actually watch the Lions or the Cardinals.

These 2 WRs deserve to be the highest paid WRs today, yes. But $16 million a year?

They represent a value to the team that goes waay beyond and above their actual "production" on the field.

Marshall sure as hell does not.

If the Bears get to the Super Bowl in 2012 with Marshall--because, after all they did win their division just 1 year ago without Marshall--then you will have made your argument and I will concede mine. Until then, adios

lawl
03-16-2012, 08:59 PM
Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture. The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services. These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year. Actually, I HAVE provided just reasoning. You just don't like it or agree with it or maybe just don't understand it Your "proof" argument is to keep returning to "Marshall is getting $9 million a year and Kiwi doesn't, so Marshall is clearly worth more than Kiwi". And you seriously compare a contract of a player who was coming off a career-threatening SPINAL NECK injury, whose football future would be in question for ANYONE, to that of a healthy WR. THAT'S your "proof" of who is more valuable to his team. You talk of "real life events" regarding their respective contracts. If it's true that "at least two teams have been willing to pay Marshall $9 million a year and give up draft picks for his services", it is equally true that 2 teams have been ultimately UNwilling to continue paying Marshall his $9 million, and have REQUIRED draft picks for him. THAT's your real life event. Ever hear of "buyer's remorse"? Look it up in the dictionary. It says "see Brandon Marshall for definition". But the main point is that the two of you continue to assume that number of yards caught and amount of dollar compensation is the one and only true criterion for assessing a player's "value" to a team. It is not. In your world, Mario Williams BY DEFINITION is all of a sudden the best defender EVER in the history of the league, because he now has the largest dollar contract for any defender in the history of the NFL. He is not the best defender in the league today, let alone the best DE or LB today, and certainly not in the history of the NFL. This not my "pure conjecture". As just one example of an ex player who thinks the Bills made a bad deal is Brian Baldinger (bless his heart) who said last night that Mario is not a game changer, that he's not the game changer that JPP is. But in your world Williams MUST be a better defender than JPP is, and MUST be of more value to the Bills than JPP is to the Giants. He MUST be, because the Bills said so with their 100 million contract. Teams overpay a given player all the time. A player's salary--by itself--has no ABSOLUTE relation to that player's actual, real value to his team. It has a relation to what the MARKET is any given year for a position, and also to how DESPERATE a given team is (say, the Bills, or Tampa Bay for example) to j*** up its fan base, not to what a team's true valuation is of that player. Of course, your next argument will center around the new contract of Calvin Johnson or last year's Fitzgerald contract. And that will be because you don't see those contracts for what they are-- A) Possibly over payment and/or B) Justified because those 2 are exceptions to the rule, and they alone represent THE reason fans will pay big bucks to actually watch the Lions or the Cardinals. These 2 WRs deserve to be the highest paid WRs today, yes. But $16 million a year? They represent a value to the team that goes waay beyond and above their actual "production" on the field. Marshall sure as hell does not. If the Bears get to the Super Bowl in 2012 with Marshall--because, after all they did win their division just 1 year ago without Marshall--then you will have made your argument and I will concede mine. Until then, adios</P>


</P>


Yes. It is my proof. There have been two deals just this year of guys coming off bad injuries (TT and Rasheen Mathis) that have been paid better than kiwi.</P>


You have not rationalized or quantified or even come close to qualifying Kiwi's value when compared to Marshall's. Not once. How is Kiwi more valuable to us than Marshall has been to the Dolphins or Broncos? </P>


Mario Williams is the highest paid player because of when he signed his deal. Every year guys get paid more than the previous year, happens all the time. </P>


Since you were too simple to understand why Brandon Marshall is still getting paid more than Kiwi is such a defining point in my argument, I'll have to try this once again.</P>


Kiwi was in a prime position to be paid more than Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall never even saw free agency and got paid the highest for a WR two years ago. By Bill Parcells, nonetheless. To get Kiwi on their roster all a team had to do was give him a big contract. To get Marshall on their roster the Dolphins had to give up picks just so they had the ability to give him the contract that they gave him. You say two teams in the NFL are no longer willing to pay Marshall 9 million a year? Well guess what, NO team was willing to pay kiwi 9 mill a year, but theres still one willing to give Marshall that much. </P>


This is nothing like comparing JPP to Mario or Garcon to Nicks, etc. This comparison makes sense. </P>


And now, kiwi plays strongside linebacker in a 43. The hands down least important position on a 43 defense. </P>


</P>

BK07071
03-16-2012, 09:54 PM
We probably aren't going to be able to resign him next off season and he could net us some solid draft picks.

He would also free up 4mil which we could use to work out a new contract with Osi. I don't see us being able to re up Kiwi and Osi. While Kiwi is a good player, J-Will is being groomed and Osi is more of an impact player on the line.

We can us the picks as cheaper replacements on the line &amp; or LB.

But, this is just me being arm chair GM.

You can't be serious!

Diamondring
03-16-2012, 10:20 PM
this draft is deep in DL..look for gmen to trade down and get one of the lineman in 2nd rd and an extra pick..with the new coll bargaining agreement draft picks are more valuable than ever due to the less money a team has to pay..like gholston was a 4yr/40m flop..now he'd be only a 4yr/25m flopI would like Reese to drop down to get more picks so that we can have more depth. He is talented and able to get some good players deep in the draft.

Marvelousmik
03-17-2012, 01:10 AM
Gmen46:
When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

Since we both agree that kiwi's performance on the field is no where near marshals performance on the field, my same question to you is


If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?

gmen46
03-17-2012, 05:45 AM
Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture. The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services. These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year. Actually, I HAVE provided just reasoning. You just don't like it or agree with it or maybe just don't understand it Your "proof" argument is to keep returning to "Marshall is getting $9 million a year and Kiwi doesn't, so Marshall is clearly worth more than Kiwi". And you seriously compare a contract of a player who was coming off a career-threatening SPINAL NECK injury, whose football future would be in question for ANYONE, to that of a healthy WR. THAT'S your "proof" of who is more valuable to his team. You talk of "real life events" regarding their respective contracts. If it's true that "at least two teams have been willing to pay Marshall $9 million a year and give up draft picks for his services", it is equally true that 2 teams have been ultimately UNwilling to continue paying Marshall his $9 million, and have REQUIRED draft picks for him. THAT's your real life event. Ever hear of "buyer's remorse"? Look it up in the dictionary. It says "see Brandon Marshall for definition". But the main point is that the two of you continue to assume that number of yards caught and amount of dollar compensation is the one and only true criterion for assessing a player's "value" to a team. It is not. In your world, Mario Williams BY DEFINITION is all of a sudden the best defender EVER in the history of the league, because he now has the largest dollar contract for any defender in the history of the NFL. He is not the best defender in the league today, let alone the best DE or LB today, and certainly not in the history of the NFL. This not my "pure conjecture". As just one example of an ex player who thinks the Bills made a bad deal is Brian Baldinger (bless his heart) who said last night that Mario is not a game changer, that he's not the game changer that JPP is. But in your world Williams MUST be a better defender than JPP is, and MUST be of more value to the Bills than JPP is to the Giants. He MUST be, because the Bills said so with their 100 million contract. Teams overpay a given player all the time. A player's salary--by itself--has no ABSOLUTE relation to that player's actual, real value to his team. It has a relation to what the MARKET is any given year for a position, and also to how DESPERATE a given team is (say, the Bills, or Tampa Bay for example) to j*** up its fan base, not to what a team's true valuation is of that player. Of course, your next argument will center around the new contract of Calvin Johnson or last year's Fitzgerald contract. And that will be because you don't see those contracts for what they are-- A) Possibly over payment and/or B) Justified because those 2 are exceptions to the rule, and they alone represent THE reason fans will pay big bucks to actually watch the Lions or the Cardinals. These 2 WRs deserve to be the highest paid WRs today, yes. But $16 million a year? They represent a value to the team that goes waay beyond and above their actual "production" on the field. Marshall sure as hell does not. If the Bears get to the Super Bowl in 2012 with Marshall--because, after all they did win their division just 1 year ago without Marshall--then you will have made your argument and I will concede mine. Until then, adios</P>


*</P>


Yes. It is my proof. There have been two deals just this year* of guys coming off bad injuries (TT and Rasheen Mathis) that have been paid better than kiwi.</P>


You have not rationalized or quantified or even come close to qualifying Kiwi's value when compared to Marshall's. Not once. How is Kiwi more valuable to us than Marshall has been to the Dolphins or Broncos? </P>


Mario Williams is the highest paid player because of when he signed his deal. Every year guys get paid more than the previous year, happens all the time. </P>


Since you were too simple to understand why Brandon Marshall is still getting paid more than Kiwi is such a defining point in my argument, I'll have to try this once again.</P>


Kiwi was in a prime position to be paid more than Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall never even saw free agency and got paid the highest for a WR two years ago. By Bill Parcells, nonetheless. To get Kiwi on their roster all a team had to do was give him a big contract. To get Marshall on their roster the Dolphins had to give up picks just so they had the ability to give him the contract that they gave him. You say two teams in the NFL are no longer willing to pay Marshall 9 million a year? Well guess what, NO team was willing to pay kiwi 9 mill a year, but theres still one willing to give Marshall that much. </P>


This is nothing like comparing JPP to Mario or Garcon to Nicks, etc. This comparison makes sense. </P>


And now, kiwi plays strongside linebacker in a 43. The hands down least important position on a 43 defense. </P>


*</P>

Again, I have "rationalized" Kiwi's value to the Giants, as opposed to Marshall's value to his 2 teams. You just don't want to see it.

Kiwi played a hybrid LB/DE/DT this past year, and chances are he will again, because of how the year ended with the defense. He is not simply a strong side LB.

The fact that you don't see that, and that you don't understand the value of that to the team, says a lot about why this debate has gone where it's gone.

You obviously have no idea of what the word "value" means. Most people do, so I assumed you did. I was wrong about that.

What do you think Reese means when he constantly refers to looking for value in his FA and draft pursuits? That he's looking for players he can pay the most money to?

TT's contract is complex and HEAVILY incentivised, is not guaranteed beyond 1 year and $1 million, and as such is not an argument for you to compare to Kiwi's situation last year.

Williams' contract is not simply a function of this being 2012. Are you seriously that naive?

If that were true, his $100 million contract would not make the splash that it did. It isn't even close to the next highest defensive player's contract.

Of course, the last defender to get a $100 million contract didn't actually get more than a third of it (which had been guaranteed), and was cut after 2 years.

That word "value" again. It was missing from Albert.

As is clear by this response of yours, you still equate the absolute salary of one player vs the salary of another player as indisputable "proof" of that player's value to the team.

I don't. GMs of stable, consistently quality teams don't.

Finally, resorting to personal insult is the last refuge of a lost argument, and doesn't reflect well on you at all.

gmen46
03-17-2012, 06:01 AM
Gmen46:
When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

Since we both agree that kiwi's performance on the field is no where near marshals performance on the field, my same question to you is

*
If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?

I did not make that statement. Lawl did.

My argument is that performance on the field BY ITSELF does not NECESSARILY equate to a player's true value to a team, just as a players salary by itself does not.

I know you don't get this, and I'm wasting my breath, but--

Brandon Marshall had more than twice the yards and 2 more TDs than did Manningham in 2011.

Was Marshall the more productive WR? Absolutely.

But ask Miami's GM which receiver was of more value to his respective team in 2011.

And to compare a WR's production of total receptions and yards to production of a defensive player in absolute terms is ludicrous. They aren't measured, and therefore are not evaluated, by the same criteria.

That's the quintessential "comparing apples to oranges".

Marvelousmik
03-17-2012, 02:59 PM
Gmen46:
When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

Since we both agree that kiwi's performance on the field is no where near marshals performance on the field, my same question to you is


If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?

I did not make that statement. Lawl did.

My argument is that performance on the field BY ITSELF does not NECESSARILY equate to a player's true value to a team, just as a players salary by itself does not.

I know you don't get this, and I'm wasting my breath, but--

Brandon Marshall had more than twice the yards and 2 more TDs than did Manningham in 2011.

Was Marshall the more productive WR? Absolutely.

But ask Miami's GM which receiver was of more value to his respective team in 2011.

And to compare a WR's production of total receptions and yards to production of a defensive player in absolute terms is ludicrous. They aren't measured, and therefore are not evaluated, by the same criteria.

That's the quintessential "comparing apples to oranges".

It is obvious that you are wrong and you still won't let go of your argument.


You lose the case of producing/production. But what do you do to hold on to your weak argument? You now move on to a different point called "value". In spite of on field production ( which marshal has more of ) kiwi has more value. However, you wont answer a simple question.


If performance on the field doesn't show a players production/value, what does?

I added in value for you. What makes kiwi, or Manningham more of value to their team than Brandon Marshall?

Example #2, you said it can be argued kiwi produced more for the giants than marshall did for his team, but then you contradict that and say you cant compare the two because thats like comparing apples to oranges. If you can't compare the two, then why would you say kiwi produced more? For you to know if someone produced more than another player, you would have to compare both players. This is simple logic.

This brings me to my next point. I said since marshall got traded for 2 3rd round picks, i doubt kiwi would get more than a 5th. This is what started the whole argument. Your argument against that is kiwi is worth more to his team in spite of Brandon Marshall being the much more productive player. That being said, what makes him worth more? (same question you always dodge). <font color="#0000FF">

<font color="#000000">You brought up playoff appearances as a way to justify who produced more for each team which is another weak argument, because MDJ is a player who has never made it to the playoffs, as far as i know. And if he did make it to the playoffs once, for most of his career he has been losing games.
And again, you tried to counter this with yet another weak argument. You know what your counter argument was? "Face of the franchise" No facts, or reasons why he has a lot of value. All you said was he is the face of the franchise. You Never said how.

Last but not least
</font></font>
Last year Brandon Marshall was the number 1 receiver. He is one of the most physical, if not the most physical WR in the NFL and run blocks very well. He ate up all the double teams since there were no other threats on Miami. Defenses base their game plan on trying to shutdown Marshall, and slide the help to his side. Even when he doesn't make plays he is helping his team. He still managed to have more than twice the yardage, more than twice the receptions, and more touchdowns that Manningham. He made Made it to the pro bowl.

Even you know, Brandon Marshall plays hard when he is on the field. If you ever watch him, he is always fighting for extra yards and putting it all out there for his team. No one can ever question if he plays with heart. No matter how many points his team is down by, he is still running hard. Yet Manningham was more of value.
<div id="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_designEd itorArea" style="clear:both;padding-top:1px;">
<iframe id="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_designEd itor" style="padding: 0px; width:650px; height: 350px;" src="about:blank" class="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_DesignBo x" "="">&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;g

</iframe>
</div>If you can't give me an answer, i guess its the last time ill ask you this question.
<div id="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_designEd itorArea" style="clear:both;padding-top:1px;">

</div>
If on field performance and production on the field does not show a players true value, what does?

Marvelousmik
03-17-2012, 03:39 PM
Lol i couldnt help myself. If manningham is also more of value, according to your logic he is also worth more than brandon marshall who got traded for two 3rd round picks.

This up coming season i will remember not to reply to any of your threads. You sir, no nothing about football. Good bye

gmen46
03-17-2012, 05:19 PM
Gmen46:
When it comes to performance on the field, its not even close.

Since we both agree that kiwi's performance on the field is no where near marshals performance on the field, my same question to you is

*
If performance on the field doesn't show a players production, what does?

I did not make that statement. Lawl did.

My argument is that performance on the field BY ITSELF does not NECESSARILY equate to a player's true value to a team, just as a players salary by itself does not.

I know you don't get this, and I'm wasting my breath, but--

Brandon Marshall had more than twice the yards and 2 more TDs than did Manningham in 2011.

Was Marshall the more productive WR? Absolutely.

But ask Miami's GM which receiver was of more value to his respective team in 2011.

And to compare a WR's production of total receptions and yards to production of a defensive player in absolute terms is ludicrous. They aren't measured, and therefore are not evaluated, by the same criteria.

That's the quintessential "comparing apples to oranges".

If you won't answer my question, this is my last reply to this thread because it is obvious that you are wrong and you still won't let go of your argument. I am sure we have all argued with stubborn people, and one of the most common things a stubborn person would do when he or she is wrong, is begin to change their points as they go on.

For example, first you said it can be argued that* kiwi produced more for the giants than marshal has for his team, but all of a sudden
now when it comes to performance on the field its not even close.



So you lose the argument of producing/production. But what do you do to hold on to your weak argument? You now move on to a different point called "value". In spite of on field production ( which marshal has more of ) kiwi has more value. However, you wont answer a simple question.

*
If performance on the field doesn't show a players production/value, what does?

I added in value for you. What makes kiwi, or Manningham more of value to their team than Brandon Marshall?

Example #2, you said Kiwi it can be argued kiwi produced more for the giants than marshall did for his team, but then you contradict that and say you cant compare the two because thats like comparing apples to oranges. If you can't compare the two, then why would you say kiwi produced more? For you to know if someone produced more than another player, you would have to compare both players. This is simple logic.

This brings me to my next point. I said since marshall got traded for 2 3rd round picks, i doubt kiwi would get more than a 5th. This is what started the whole argument. Your argument against that is kiwi is worth more than Brandon Marshall in spite of on field production. That being said, what makes him worth more? (same question you always dodge).* <font color="#0000FF">And if he is wroth more, or is more of value, we would get more than two 3rd round picks for kiwi obviously.

<font color="#000000">You brought up playoff appearances as a way to justify who produced more for each team which is another weak argument, because MDJ is a player who has never made it to the playoffs, as far as i know. And if he did make it to the playoffs once, for most of his career he has been losing games.
And again, you tried to counter this with yet another weak argument. You know what you counter argument was? "Face of the franchise" No facts, or reasons why he has a lot of value. All you said was he is the face of the franchise. You Never said how.

Last but not least
</font></font>
*Last year Brandon Marshall was the number 1 receiver. He is one of the most physical, if not the most physical WR in the NFL and run blocks very well. He ate up all the double teams since there were no other threats on Miami. Defenses base their game plan on trying to shutdown Marshall, and slide the help to his side. Even when he doesn't make plays he is helping his team. He still managed to have more than twice the yardage, more than twice the receptions, and more touchdowns that Manningham. He made Made it to the pro bowl.

Even you know, Brandon Marshall plays hard when he is on the field. If you ever watch him, he is always fighting for extra yards and putting it all out there for his team. No one can ever question if he plays with heart. No matter how many points his team is down by, he is still running hard. Yet Manningham was more of value.

If you can't give me an answer, i guess its the last time ill ask you this question.
<div id="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_designEd itorArea" style="clear:both;padding-top:1px;">
<iframe id="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_designEd itor" style="padding: 0px; width:650px; height: 350px;" src="about:blank" class="ctl0__ctl1_bcr_PostForm___PostBody_Editor_DesignBo x" "="">
</iframe>
</div>
If on field performance and production on the field does not show a players true value, what does?



1) I have not "changed my point as we move on".

2) I--gmen46--did NOT say "when it comes to performance on the field it's not even close".
I. DID. NOT. SAY. IT.

Lawl made that statement early in this thread.

I have said this now 3 times to you, as you keep throwing it in my face as your ULTIMATE PROOF of my "self-contradiction".

Are you really that dense? Or are you just pulling my chain? (Rhetorical question. I know the answer.)

My point has ALWAYS been about "value" does not necessarily equate to "production" or "performance ONLY". That's why I responded to your absurd "since Marshall was traded for two 3rd rd picks, Kiwi would not bring any more than a 5th rd" in the first place.

It's YOU and Lawl who insist upon ignoring my point and keep insisting on Marshall's $9 million and total yards as being the absolute indicator of his "value".

3) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my answer to your refrain of a question. I did answer your question in negative terms, but gave no positive alternative.

So. Performance and production CAN be used in evaluating a player's specific value to a team, but it does not ALWAYS and BY ITSELF equate to much value to a team.

Now, you may not agree with my answer, but it IS an answer.

4) I referred to Mannigham as having more value to the Giants in 2011, as opposed to Marshall's value to the Dolphins this year.

Marshall had 80 catches for 1200 yards receiving, and 6 TDs.

Manningham had 38 catches for over 500 yards, and 4TDs in the REGULAR season.

Of course it's clear to even the most thick headed observer that Marshall had a much more "productive" year than did Manningham. During the REGULAR season. That's why I used the example.

But MM then went on to catch 3 TDs in 3 post season games--still part of the 2011 season, even though that fact is inconvenient for you-- along with the famous 40 yard sideline catch to set up the game-winning score in the Super Bowl.

Marshall was more "productive" during the regular season than Manningham. No question.

Manningham was more "valuable" to the Giants by the end of the 2011 season/post season.

But you don't see that.

Because you see "value" through a very simplistic, narrow one-way lense.

Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to accumulating total stats over 16-20 games.

This point cannot be made any more clear than what has happened to both Marshall and Manningham this off season.

Miami could NOT WAIT (for free agency) to get rid of Marshall and get whatever it could for him. The prospect of a couple high draft picks in exchange for Marshall was considered more valuable to Miami than the prospect of another 1200 yard season from him.

Why do you suppose MM has ANY interest from ANY team this FA period--as reluctant and slow to offer as teams might be? Because of his regular season 39 catches for 523 yards? Really?

Value vs production.

Dispute that all you want, but you're only fooling yourself, no one else.

gmen46
03-17-2012, 05:23 PM
Lol i couldnt help myself. If manningham is also more of value, according to your logic he is also worth more than brandon marshall who got traded for two 3rd round picks.

This up coming season i will remember not to reply to any of your threads. You sir, no nothing about football. Good bye


You just made my point. You have no clue as to what "value" means regarding a specific player to a specific team.

You are using YOUR "logic", not mine, with your MM-should- be- worth- more- than -Marshall's- two- 3rd rd- picks remark, not mine.

And is that a threat or a promise about next season?

lawl
03-17-2012, 08:33 PM
Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture. The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services. These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year. Actually, I HAVE provided just reasoning. You just don't like it or agree with it or maybe just don't understand it Your "proof" argument is to keep returning to "Marshall is getting $9 million a year and Kiwi doesn't, so Marshall is clearly worth more than Kiwi". And you seriously compare a contract of a player who was coming off a career-threatening SPINAL NECK injury, whose football future would be in question for ANYONE, to that of a healthy WR. THAT'S your "proof" of who is more valuable to his team. You talk of "real life events" regarding their respective contracts. If it's true that "at least two teams have been willing to pay Marshall $9 million a year and give up draft picks for his services", it is equally true that 2 teams have been ultimately UNwilling to continue paying Marshall his $9 million, and have REQUIRED draft picks for him. THAT's your real life event. Ever hear of "buyer's remorse"? Look it up in the dictionary. It says "see Brandon Marshall for definition". But the main point is that the two of you continue to assume that number of yards caught and amount of dollar compensation is the one and only true criterion for assessing a player's "value" to a team. It is not. In your world, Mario Williams BY DEFINITION is all of a sudden the best defender EVER in the history of the league, because he now has the largest dollar contract for any defender in the history of the NFL. He is not the best defender in the league today, let alone the best DE or LB today, and certainly not in the history of the NFL. This not my "pure conjecture". As just one example of an ex player who thinks the Bills made a bad deal is Brian Baldinger (bless his heart) who said last night that Mario is not a game changer, that he's not the game changer that JPP is. But in your world Williams MUST be a better defender than JPP is, and MUST be of more value to the Bills than JPP is to the Giants. He MUST be, because the Bills said so with their 100 million contract. Teams overpay a given player all the time. A player's salary--by itself--has no ABSOLUTE relation to that player's actual, real value to his team. It has a relation to what the MARKET is any given year for a position, and also to how DESPERATE a given team is (say, the Bills, or Tampa Bay for example) to j*** up its fan base, not to what a team's true valuation is of that player. Of course, your next argument will center around the new contract of Calvin Johnson or last year's Fitzgerald contract. And that will be because you don't see those contracts for what they are-- A) Possibly over payment and/or B) Justified because those 2 are exceptions to the rule, and they alone represent THE reason fans will pay big bucks to actually watch the Lions or the Cardinals. These 2 WRs deserve to be the highest paid WRs today, yes. But $16 million a year? They represent a value to the team that goes waay beyond and above their actual "production" on the field. Marshall sure as hell does not. If the Bears get to the Super Bowl in 2012 with Marshall--because, after all they did win their division just 1 year ago without Marshall--then you will have made your argument and I will concede mine. Until then, adios</P>


</P>


Yes. It is my proof. There have been two deals just this year of guys coming off bad injuries (TT and Rasheen Mathis) that have been paid better than kiwi.</P>


You have not rationalized or quantified or even come close to qualifying Kiwi's value when compared to Marshall's. Not once. How is Kiwi more valuable to us than Marshall has been to the Dolphins or Broncos? </P>


Mario Williams is the highest paid player because of when he signed his deal. Every year guys get paid more than the previous year, happens all the time. </P>


Since you were too simple to understand why Brandon Marshall is still getting paid more than Kiwi is such a defining point in my argument, I'll have to try this once again.</P>


Kiwi was in a prime position to be paid more than Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall never even saw free agency and got paid the highest for a WR two years ago. By Bill Parcells, nonetheless. To get Kiwi on their roster all a team had to do was give him a big contract. To get Marshall on their roster the Dolphins had to give up picks just so they had the ability to give him the contract that they gave him. You say two teams in the NFL are no longer willing to pay Marshall 9 million a year? Well guess what, NO team was willing to pay kiwi 9 mill a year, but theres still one willing to give Marshall that much. </P>


This is nothing like comparing JPP to Mario or Garcon to Nicks, etc. This comparison makes sense. </P>


And now, kiwi plays strongside linebacker in a 43. The hands down least important position on a 43 defense. </P>


</P>


Again, I have "rationalized" Kiwi's value to the Giants, as opposed to Marshall's value to his 2 teams. You just don't want to see it. Kiwi played a hybrid LB/DE/DT this past year, and chances are he will again, because of how the year ended with the defense. He is not simply a strong side LB. The fact that you don't see that, and that you don't understand the value of that to the team, says a lot about why this debate has gone where it's gone. You obviously have no idea of what the word "value" means. Most people do, so I assumed you did. I was wrong about that. What do you think Reese means when he constantly refers to looking for value in his FA and draft pursuits? That he's looking for players he can pay the most money to? TT's contract is complex and HEAVILY incentivised, is not guaranteed beyond 1 year and $1 million, and as such is not an argument for you to compare to Kiwi's situation last year. Williams' contract is not simply a function of this being 2012. Are you seriously that naive? If that were true, his $100 million contract would not make the splash that it did. It isn't even close to the next highest defensive player's contract. Of course, the last defender to get a $100 million contract didn't actually get more than a third of it (which had been guaranteed), and was cut after 2 years. That word "value" again. It was missing from Albert. As is clear by this response of yours, you still equate the absolute salary of one player vs the salary of another player as indisputable "proof" of that player's value to the team. I don't. GMs of stable, consistently quality teams don't. Finally, resorting to personal insult is the last refuge of a lost argument, and doesn't reflect well on you at all.</P>


Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</P>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</P>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shutdown going into the gameif you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.It's not as though the Dolphins werethe worstteam in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </P>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</P>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </P>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</P>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</P>

gmen46
03-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Right, again you provide no evidence or just reasoning as to why kiwi has helped the giants moreso than Marshall has helped the dolphins or broncos. Nothing at all. Just pure conjecture. The fact is that no team in the league values kiwi enough that they would pay him 9 mill a year, otherwise he wouldn't be a giant. Another fact is that there are atleast two teams willing to pay Marshall 9 million dollars a year AND give up draft picks for his services. These are the real life events of the NFL that has determined these guys value. If kiwi hadnt been a free agent anytime recently such that his value would be unknown then maybe you would have an argument. But you don't. Each of these guy's value has been established in the past year. Actually, I HAVE provided just reasoning. You just don't like it or agree with it or maybe just don't understand it Your "proof" argument is to keep returning to "Marshall is getting $9 million a year and Kiwi doesn't, so Marshall is clearly worth more than Kiwi". And you seriously compare a contract of a player who was coming off a career-threatening SPINAL NECK injury, whose football future would be in question for ANYONE, to that of a healthy WR. THAT'S your "proof" of who is more valuable to his team. You talk of "real life events" regarding their respective contracts. If it's true that "at least two teams have been willing to pay Marshall $9 million a year and give up draft picks for his services", it is equally true that 2 teams have been ultimately UNwilling to continue paying Marshall his $9 million, and have REQUIRED draft picks for him. THAT's your real life event. Ever hear of "buyer's remorse"? Look it up in the dictionary. It says "see Brandon Marshall for definition". But the main point is that the two of you continue to assume that number of yards caught and amount of dollar compensation is the one and only true criterion for assessing a player's "value" to a team. It is not. In your world, Mario Williams BY DEFINITION is all of a sudden the best defender EVER in the history of the league, because he now has the largest dollar contract for any defender in the history of the NFL. He is not the best defender in the league today, let alone the best DE or LB today, and certainly not in the history of the NFL. This not my "pure conjecture". As just one example of an ex player who thinks the Bills made a bad deal is Brian Baldinger (bless his heart) who said last night that Mario is not a game changer, that he's not the game changer that JPP is. But in your world Williams MUST be a better defender than JPP is, and MUST be of more value to the Bills than JPP is to the Giants. He MUST be, because the Bills said so with their 100 million contract. Teams overpay a given player all the time. A player's salary--by itself--has no ABSOLUTE relation to that player's actual, real value to his team. It has a relation to what the MARKET is any given year for a position, and also to how DESPERATE a given team is (say, the Bills, or Tampa Bay for example) to j*** up its fan base, not to what a team's true valuation is of that player. Of course, your next argument will center around the new contract of Calvin Johnson or last year's Fitzgerald contract. And that will be because you don't see those contracts for what they are-- A) Possibly over payment and/or B) Justified because those 2 are exceptions to the rule, and they alone represent THE reason fans will pay big bucks to actually watch the Lions or the Cardinals. These 2 WRs deserve to be the highest paid WRs today, yes. But $16 million a year? They represent a value to the team that goes waay beyond and above their actual "production" on the field. Marshall sure as hell does not. If the Bears get to the Super Bowl in 2012 with Marshall--because, after all they did win their division just 1 year ago without Marshall--then you will have made your argument and I will concede mine. Until then, adios</P>


*</P>


Yes. It is my proof. There have been two deals just this year* of guys coming off bad injuries (TT and Rasheen Mathis) that have been paid better than kiwi.</P>


You have not rationalized or quantified or even come close to qualifying Kiwi's value when compared to Marshall's. Not once. How is Kiwi more valuable to us than Marshall has been to the Dolphins or Broncos? </P>


Mario Williams is the highest paid player because of when he signed his deal. Every year guys get paid more than the previous year, happens all the time. </P>


Since you were too simple to understand why Brandon Marshall is still getting paid more than Kiwi is such a defining point in my argument, I'll have to try this once again.</P>


Kiwi was in a prime position to be paid more than Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall never even saw free agency and got paid the highest for a WR two years ago. By Bill Parcells, nonetheless. To get Kiwi on their roster all a team had to do was give him a big contract. To get Marshall on their roster the Dolphins had to give up picks just so they had the ability to give him the contract that they gave him. You say two teams in the NFL are no longer willing to pay Marshall 9 million a year? Well guess what, NO team was willing to pay kiwi 9 mill a year, but theres still one willing to give Marshall that much. </P>


This is nothing like comparing JPP to Mario or Garcon to Nicks, etc. This comparison makes sense. </P>


And now, kiwi plays strongside linebacker in a 43. The hands down least important position on a 43 defense. </P>


*</P>


Again, I have "rationalized" Kiwi's value to the Giants, as opposed to Marshall's value to his 2 teams. You just don't want to see it. Kiwi played a hybrid LB/DE/DT this past year, and chances are he will again, because of how the year ended with the defense. He is not simply a strong side LB. The fact that you don't see that, and that you don't understand the value of that to the team, says a lot about why this debate has gone where it's gone. You obviously have no idea of what the word "value" means. Most people do, so I assumed you did. I was wrong about that. What do you think Reese means when he constantly refers to looking for value in his FA and draft pursuits? That he's looking for players he can pay the most money to? TT's contract is complex and HEAVILY incentivised, is not guaranteed beyond 1 year and $1 million, and as such is not an argument for you to compare to Kiwi's situation last year. Williams' contract is not simply a function of this being 2012. Are you seriously that naive? If that were true, his $100 million contract would not make the splash that it did. It isn't even close to the next highest defensive player's contract. Of course, the last defender to get a $100 million contract didn't actually get more than a third of it (which had been guaranteed), and was cut after 2 years. That word "value" again. It was missing from Albert. As is clear by this response of yours, you still equate the absolute salary of one player vs the salary of another player as indisputable "proof" of that player's value to the team. I don't. GMs of stable, consistently quality teams don't. Finally, resorting to personal insult is the last refuge of a lost argument, and doesn't reflect well on you at all.</P>


Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</P>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</P>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </P>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</P>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </P>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</P>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</P>

Yeah, he's so much more important to the team, that both his teams got rid of him before his contract was up. They both had had enough of "feeling his presence" on their team.

How many other teams do you know who trade away their "most important" player--not to improve their team by adding a premier player or a coveted high 1st rd pick in exchange, but to improve their team by getting rid of their "most important player"?

And don't try sneaking in players lost through free agency or 14 year vets with potentially career-threatening injuries, like you did before. I'm talking about what YOU call "high producing" MOST important player on the team who is TRADED.

The fact you won't comment on Manningham's value to us in 2011 vs Marshall's value to Miami shows--again-- you do not understand what "value" means.

Was there a game Marshall played in 2011 (or 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006), where if he had not caught a specific TD, his team would not have won the AFCC? Was there a game he has ever played in his career that he made a critical catch in the game-winning drive of ANY meaningful game, let alone the Super Bowl?

That's the difference between "value" and "production".

That's apparently beyond your capacity to grasp. That's ok. Everyone has a role to play.

Bush had his best year as a RB because Miami used him as a between the lines RB as opposed to Saints, who never did. Had little to do with Marshall "drawing double teams".

You're wrong about why Williams got his $100 mil (give or take). The Bills severely overpaid for him. And they know it. Nothing to do with "well, THIS year we got to pay a defensive FA more money than LAST year".

They overpaid him because they need some juice, to bring what they think is excitement to their fans after teasing them and then falling off a cliff in 2011. They think Williams gives them that juice.

He is far from being the "best defensive player in the league", contrary to YOUR reasoning (since he's now the highest paid defensive player in the league) The Texans were a horrendous defense EVERY year Williams has been there (5 years) until THIS year, and he was out 11 of their 16 games.

The year he played the least was the Texans best defense in their short history.

There's no ****ing way any other team would have paid him the Bills' contract.

lawl
03-17-2012, 11:19 PM
Yeah, he's so much more important to the team, that both his teams got rid of him before his contract was up. They both had had enough of "feeling his presence" on their team. How many other teams do you know who trade away their "most important" player--not to improve their team by adding a premier player or a coveted high 1st rd pick in exchange, but to improve their team by getting rid of their "most important player"? And don't try sneaking in players lost through free agency or 14 year vets with potentially career-threatening injuries, like you did before. I'm talking about what YOU call "high producing" MOST important player on the team who is TRADED. The fact you won't comment on Manningham's value to us in 2011 vs Marshall's value to Miami shows--again-- you do not understand what "value" means. Was there a game Marshall played in 2011 (or 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006), where if he had not caught a specific TD, his team would not have won the AFCC? Was there a game he has ever played in his career that he made a critical catch in the game-winning drive of ANY meaningful game, let alone the Super Bowl? That's the difference between "value" and "production". That's apparently beyond your capacity to grasp. That's ok. Everyone has a role to play. Bush had his best year as a RB because Miami used him as a between the lines RB as opposed to Saints, who never did. Had little to do with Marshall "drawing double teams". You're wrong about why Williams got his $100 mil (give or take). The Bills severely overpaid for him. And they know it. Nothing to do with "well, THIS year we got to pay a defensive FA more money than LAST year". They overpaid him because they need some juice, to bring what they think is excitement to their fans after teasing them and then falling off a cliff in 2011. They think Williams gives them that juice. He is far from being the "best defensive player in the league", contrary to YOUR reasoning (since he's now the highest paid defensive player in the league) The Texans were a horrendous defense EVERY year Williams has been there (5 years) until THIS year, and he was out 11 of their 16 games. The year he played the least was the Texans best defense in their short history. There's no ****ing way any other team would have paid him the Bills' contract.</P>


Love the condescending undertone. I'm sure I can do that too.</P>


The Broncos got 2 2nd rounders for BM, thats great value. The Dolphins have a new coaching staff coming in and they didn't want him to be a part of their plans. Probably because he's a punk off the field. Two teams got rid of him, Two teams also paid extra just to get him. Hmm.</P>


Jared Allen and Randy Moss were both traded while being the best player on their respective team.</P>


Champ Bailey and Clinton Portis were traded</P>


Brett Favre was traded.</P>


Jerome Bettis was traded to the Steelers.</P>


Enough examples for ya sweetheart?</P>


No?</P>


Ok, Marshall Faulkwas also traded.</P>


As for Mario Williams. He could have gotten close to if not the same amount of money from other teams. Every year guys are getting paid more. This is fact. Contracts are continuously going up. The best players are not necessarily the highest paid and I have never said anything to the contrary. Just because you're too slow to understand how in this instance when comparing kiwi and marshall, their salaries are actually a good indicator of how much front offices value these guys. Not random guys on a message board, but soon to be Hall of Famer Bill Parcells. The decision of every GM in the league to not pay Kiwi 9Mand the decision of two HIGHLY respected GMs to trade for and pay BM 9mill is enough evidence to show how much these guys are truly valued throughout the league. As I've explained countless times before, because of their situations, if Kiwi truly was the more valuable player then he would most definitely be making more than BM does. This is simply not the case.</P>


Great players play on ****ty teams sometimes. It doesn't mean they aren't still helping their team moreso than good players on winning teams. One guy can only do so much.</P>

gmen46
03-18-2012, 12:54 AM
Yeah, he's so much more important to the team, that both his teams got rid of him before his contract was up. They both had had enough of "feeling his presence" on their team. How many other teams do you know who trade away their "most important" player--not to improve their team by adding a premier player or a coveted high 1st rd pick in exchange, but to improve their team by getting rid of their "most important player"? And don't try sneaking in players lost through free agency or 14 year vets with potentially career-threatening injuries, like you did before. I'm talking about what YOU call "high producing" MOST important player on the team who is TRADED. The fact you won't comment on Manningham's value to us in 2011 vs Marshall's value to Miami shows--again-- you do not understand what "value" means. Was there a game Marshall played in 2011 (or 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006), where if he had not caught a specific TD, his team would not have won the AFCC? Was there a game he has ever played in his career that he made a critical catch in the game-winning drive of ANY meaningful game, let alone the Super Bowl? That's the difference between "value" and "production". That's apparently beyond your capacity to grasp. That's ok. Everyone has a role to play. Bush had his best year as a RB because Miami used him as a between the lines RB as opposed to Saints, who never did. Had little to do with Marshall "drawing double teams". You're wrong about why Williams got his $100 mil (give or take). The Bills severely overpaid for him. And they know it. Nothing to do with "well, THIS year we got to pay a defensive FA more money than LAST year". They overpaid him because they need some juice, to bring what they think is excitement to their fans after teasing them and then falling off a cliff in 2011. They think Williams gives them that juice. He is far from being the "best defensive player in the league", contrary to YOUR reasoning (since he's now the highest paid defensive player in the league) The Texans were a horrendous defense EVERY year Williams has been there (5 years) until THIS year, and he was out 11 of their 16 games. The year he played the least was the Texans best defense in their short history. There's no ****ing way any other team would have paid him the Bills' contract.</P>


Love the condescending undertone. I'm sure I can do that too.</P>


The Broncos got 2 2nd rounders for BM, thats great value. The Dolphins have a new coaching staff coming in and they didn't want him to be a part of their plans. Probably because he's a punk off the field. Two teams got rid of him, Two teams also paid extra just to get him. Hmm.</P>


Jared Allen and Randy Moss were both traded while being the best player on their respective team.</P>


Champ Bailey and Clinton Portis were traded</P>


Brett Favre was traded.</P>


Jerome Bettis was traded to the Steelers.</P>


Enough examples for ya sweetheart?</P>


No?</P>


Ok, Marshall Faulk*was also traded.</P>


As for Mario Williams. He could have gotten close to if not the same amount of money from other teams. Every year guys are getting paid more. This is fact. Contracts are continuously going up. The best players are not necessarily the highest paid and I have never said anything to the contrary. Just because you're too slow to understand how in this instance when comparing kiwi and marshall, their salaries are actually a good indicator of how much front offices value these guys. Not random guys on a message board, but soon to be Hall of Famer Bill Parcells. The decision of every GM in the league to not pay Kiwi 9M*and the decision of two HIGHLY respected GMs to trade for and pay BM 9mill is enough evidence to show how much these guys are truly valued throughout the league. As I've explained countless times before, because of their situations, if Kiwi truly was the more valuable player then he would most definitely be making more than BM does. This is simply not the case.</P>


Great players play on ****ty teams sometimes. It doesn't mean they aren't still helping their team moreso than good players on winning teams. One guy can only do so much.</P>

Four big trades in 20 years.

Favre was traded his first year in the league, before the modern FA (as an Atlanta reject), and he was traded at the end of his career, when GB actually thought he had "retired", so he doesn't fit into any ones' definition of "most important" player AT THE TIME of either trade.

Which Moss trade are you referring to? Oh wait, it doesn't matter. If you think Moss was the "most important player" --or even AN important player--for the Raiders when they traded him to NE, then you have nothing more to say that any one will want to see or hear. When he was trade by NE to Vikes in 2010 he was DONE (and *****ing) in the eyes of NE. His time there at the beginning of that year--2010--was atrocious, as was his time at Vikes and at Titans. If you insist he was NE's "most important player" when they traded him away, then i want what you're smoking.

As I said before, trades of major players are VERY RARE over the past several years, especially since the beginning of Current FA. I did not say they NEVER occur.

Whereas, as your attempt to reject my point about Marshall's short fall of worth, you claim "trades happen all the time".

They don't happen all the time.

Four big trades of "most important players" in 20 years is pretty rare in my book. Thank you for supporting my point.

You referred a couple times before to the fact that Parcells was with Miami when they traded for Marshall, as if that automatically means by DEFINITION Marshall MUST be the "all that" you insist he is. Not really. It means Parcells along with the other Miami decision makers--if any--made a mistake. A mistake that was rectified by trading him away the following year.

Even Parcells has made a mistake or two in his life.

And are you really trying to get away with "Marshall was not part of the new coaches plans" as the reason Miami traded him?

Come on, man. Go insult somebody else. New coaches want to come in and get rid of their "most important"--according to you--player on offense before they have FA and do the draft? Just "because"? What "new plan" of offensive coaches is not going to want a premier WR? Are you re tarded?

Your quote--"The best players are not necessarily the highest paid and I have never said anything to the contrary."

Yes. You have.

Later in the SAME PARAGRAPH, you say--to the contrary--"in this instance when comparing kiwi and marshall, their salaries are actually a good indicator of how much front offices value these guys".

You are a walking, talking example of one who wants to eat his cake and have it, too.

And your point about Williams' contract being merely a function of regularly rising contracts is wrong. Still. He was grossly overpaid. Most, if not all, analysts who have gone on record about his signing have said that.

What defensive player's contract has been even close to $100 million since Haynesworth's in 2009? And Albert's was considered a record-breaking contract for a defender then. It still is 3 years later, and has clearly been condemned league-wide as a gross over payment.

lawl
03-18-2012, 04:58 AM
Yeah, he's so much more important to the team, that both his teams got rid of him before his contract was up. They both had had enough of "feeling his presence" on their team. How many other teams do you know who trade away their "most important" player--not to improve their team by adding a premier player or a coveted high 1st rd pick in exchange, but to improve their team by getting rid of their "most important player"? And don't try sneaking in players lost through free agency or 14 year vets with potentially career-threatening injuries, like you did before. I'm talking about what YOU call "high producing" MOST important player on the team who is TRADED. The fact you won't comment on Manningham's value to us in 2011 vs Marshall's value to Miami shows--again-- you do not understand what "value" means. Was there a game Marshall played in 2011 (or 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006), where if he had not caught a specific TD, his team would not have won the AFCC? Was there a game he has ever played in his career that he made a critical catch in the game-winning drive of ANY meaningful game, let alone the Super Bowl? That's the difference between "value" and "production". That's apparently beyond your capacity to grasp. That's ok. Everyone has a role to play. Bush had his best year as a RB because Miami used him as a between the lines RB as opposed to Saints, who never did. Had little to do with Marshall "drawing double teams". You're wrong about why Williams got his $100 mil (give or take). The Bills severely overpaid for him. And they know it. Nothing to do with "well, THIS year we got to pay a defensive FA more money than LAST year". They overpaid him because they need some juice, to bring what they think is excitement to their fans after teasing them and then falling off a cliff in 2011. They think Williams gives them that juice. He is far from being the "best defensive player in the league", contrary to YOUR reasoning (since he's now the highest paid defensive player in the league) The Texans were a horrendous defense EVERY year Williams has been there (5 years) until THIS year, and he was out 11 of their 16 games. The year he played the least was the Texans best defense in their short history. There's no ****ing way any other team would have paid him the Bills' contract.</P>


Love the condescending undertone. I'm sure I can do that too.</P>


The Broncos got 2 2nd rounders for BM, thats great value. The Dolphins have a new coaching staff coming in and they didn't want him to be a part of their plans. Probably because he's a punk off the field. Two teams got rid of him, Two teams also paid extra just to get him. Hmm.</P>


Jared Allen and Randy Moss were both traded while being the best player on their respective team.</P>


Champ Bailey and Clinton Portis were traded</P>


Brett Favre was traded.</P>


Jerome Bettis was traded to the Steelers.</P>


Enough examples for ya sweetheart?</P>


No?</P>


Ok, Marshall Faulk*was also traded.</P>


As for Mario Williams. He could have gotten close to if not the same amount of money from other teams. Every year guys are getting paid more. This is fact. Contracts are continuously going up. The best players are not necessarily the highest paid and I have never said anything to the contrary. Just because you're too slow to understand how in this instance when comparing kiwi and marshall, their salaries are actually a good indicator of how much front offices value these guys. Not random guys on a message board, but soon to be Hall of Famer Bill Parcells. The decision of every GM in the league to not pay Kiwi 9M*and the decision of two HIGHLY respected GMs to trade for and pay BM 9mill is enough evidence to show how much these guys are truly valued throughout the league. As I've explained countless times before, because of their situations, if Kiwi truly was the more valuable player then he would most definitely be making more than BM does. This is simply not the case.</P>


Great players play on ****ty teams sometimes. It doesn't mean they aren't still helping their team moreso than good players on winning teams. One guy can only do so much.</P>

Four big trades in 20 years.

Favre was traded his first year in the league, before the modern FA (as an Atlanta reject), and he was traded at the end of his career, when GB actually thought he had "retired", so he doesn't fit into any ones' definition of "most important" player AT THE TIME of either trade.

Which Moss trade are you referring to? Oh wait, it doesn't matter. If you think Moss was the "most important player" --or even AN important player--for the Raiders when they traded him to NE, then you have nothing more to say that any one will want to see or hear. When he was trade by NE to Vikes in 2010 he was DONE (and *****ing) in the eyes of NE. His time there at the beginning of that year--2010--was atrocious, as was his time at Vikes and at Titans. If you insist he was NE's "most important player" when they traded him away, then i want what you're smoking.

As I said before, trades of major players are VERY RARE over the past several years, especially since the beginning of Current FA. I did not say they NEVER occur.

Whereas, as your attempt to reject my point about Marshall's short fall of worth, you claim "trades happen all the time".

They don't happen all the time.

Four big trades of "most important players" in 20 years is pretty rare in my book. Thank you for supporting my point.

You referred a couple times before to the fact that Parcells was with Miami when they traded for Marshall, as if that automatically means by DEFINITION Marshall MUST be the "all that" you insist he is. Not really. It means Parcells along with the other Miami decision makers--if any--made a mistake. A mistake that was rectified by trading him away the following year.

Even Parcells has made a mistake or two in his life.

And are you really trying to get away with "Marshall was not part of the new coaches plans" as the reason Miami traded him?

Come on, man. Go insult somebody else. New coaches want to come in and get rid of their "most important"--according to you--player on offense before they have FA and do the draft? Just "because"? What "new plan" of offensive coaches is not going to want a premier WR? Are you re tarded?

Your quote--"The best players are not necessarily the highest paid and I have never said anything to the contrary."

Yes. You have.

Later in the SAME PARAGRAPH, you say--to the contrary--"in this instance when comparing kiwi and marshall, their salaries are actually a good indicator of how much front offices value these guys".

You are a walking, talking example of one who wants to eat his cake and have it, too.

And your point about Williams' contract being merely a function of regularly rising contracts is wrong. Still. He was grossly overpaid. Most, if not all, analysts who have gone on record about his signing have said that.

What defensive player's contract has been even close to $100 million since Haynesworth's in 2009? And Albert's was considered a record-breaking contract for a defender then. It still is 3 years later, and has clearly been condemned league-wide as a gross over payment.

I.didn't say they happen all the time. I said they happen (trades).

Parcells and Angelo.have traded for him. Not just parcells.

Moss was the best player onthe raiders when he got traded. Pretty clear cut.

Brandon Marshall is a 3xpro bowler and an all pro. He was most certainly the best player on that dolphin squad. I also said they traded him because he's an idiot off the field.

I also don't contradict myself in my contract argument. how you can't see this is beyond me. Just because the best players in the league aren't always the highest paid, doesn't mean certain situations can allow one to see how much a front office values these guys.

Marvelousmik
03-18-2012, 01:33 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shutdown going into the gameif you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.It's not as though the Dolphins werethe worstteam in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us than Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.

gmen46
03-18-2012, 08:03 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

Marvelousmik
03-19-2012, 02:48 AM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shutdown going into the gameif you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.It's not as though the Dolphins werethe worstteam in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

You have to be trolling. You said kiwi is worth a second round pick. Osi has always been a valuable player to us ever since day 1. He came off of a 11.5 sack season and had 10 force fumbles. That being said, we couldnt get a first round pick for osi last year. This means osi would have been of 2nd round value or less. <font color="#0000FF">How would kiwi be worth the same as osi on the market? </font>

<font color="#0000FF">How has kiwi produced more during his career than Brandon marshall?</font> You said it can be argued kiwi has produced more, then you spoke about his value to us both as a way to help your claim that we would get more for kiwi than the Phins got for marshall. If you really think we would get a second round pick for kiwi, then you either play too much madden, or is obviously trolling.

I know deep down in your heart you dont truly believe kiwi would be worth more than brandon marshall on the market. Also, you tried to use kiwi's value to us as an argument for why he is worth more on the market than brandon marshal. Now you are saying manningham also has more value to us than marshal had with the dolphins. So you are basically saying Manninham too would be worth more. LMAO.

Now that i know you are trolling, I can't take this discussion serious anymore.

gmen46
03-19-2012, 06:22 AM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

You have to be trolling. You said kiwi is worth a second round pick.* Osi has always been a valuable player to us ever since day 1. He came off of a 11.5 sack season and had 10 force fumbles. That being said, we couldnt get a first round pick for osi last year. This means osi would have been of 2nd round value or less.* <font color="#0000FF">How would kiwi be worth the same as osi on the market? </font>

<font color="#0000FF">How has kiwi produced more during his career than Brandon marshall?</font> You said it can be argued kiwi has produced more, then you spoke about his value to us both as a way to help your claim that we would get more for kiwi than the Phins got for marshall. If you really think we would get a second round pick for kiwi, then you either play too much madden, or is obviously trolling.*

I know deep down in your heart you dont truly believe kiwi would be worth more than brandon marshall on the market. Also, you tried to use kiwi's value to us as an argument for why he is worth more on the market than brandon marshal. Now you are saying manningham also has more value to us than marshal had with the dolphins. So you are basically saying Manninham too would be worth more. LMAO.

Now that i know you are trolling, I can't take this discussion serious anymore.


As I said, you don't understand what "value" is.

You think it is only about quantity. Quantity of yards, quantity of salary, etc.

You think value is absolute in that regard. It is not. "Value" is relative.

Osi is a great pass rusher. One of the best pass rushers in the league. Better than Kiwi, going strictly by their respective career sacks.

But he can't play LB. He's not too good in pass coverage. Most say he "can't play the run", although I say he has improved in that area the past 2 years.

Kiwi is a very good, if not great, DE pass rusher. He can also play LB at a very decent level. He can play coverage and he's been very good against the run. He plays where the Giants ask him to, and he plays well wherever he plays..

Kiwi has what is called "versatility". This makes him "valuable" to the Giants. As valuable as Osi, if not more so, even though he has not racked up nearly as many sacks as Osi.

Value. It's relative.

giantsfan420
03-19-2012, 06:41 AM
I don't know how u guys don't get gmens point. A rudimentary example could be when steve kerr was on the bulls when they were winning all those titles. Let's say u compared kerr to mcgrady. Mcgrady clearly had the better stats, by far. But in terms of value, which do u think the bulls would rather have, mcgrady and his stats, or kerr and those game winning and in one instance championship winning, three point shooting?
as I understand gmens stance, it isn't that he's saying kiwi produces more stats, its that relevant to the role and what we ask of him, kiwi is more valuable in what he provides to our team than marshall and what he provides to his team.

Said it earlier and ill say it again, let's say we play miami when they still had marshall. Kiwi gives us a sack and a few pressures and stops vs the run while marshall gives them 6to catches for 80 yards, which player was more valuable to their team winning? Careful, its a trick question. We did play miami last season and kiwi had a clutch sack that forced an int the very next play to marshall...it isn't stats, any moron can tell u marshall has more stat production. Its what is asked of the player and when, and how that player does his job...

But its really subjective anyways. And I don't believe gmen said kiwi is worth a second, someone said wed be lucky to get a fifth for kiwi and imho, kiwis value to what he does for our team and the role he fulfills is worth way more than a fifth

Marvelousmik
03-19-2012, 03:31 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shutdown going into the gameif you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.It's not as though the Dolphins werethe worstteam in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

You have to be trolling. You said kiwi is worth a second round pick. Osi has always been a valuable player to us ever since day 1. He came off of a 11.5 sack season and had 10 force fumbles. That being said, we couldnt get a first round pick for osi last year. This means osi would have been of 2nd round value or less. <font color="#0000FF">How would kiwi be worth the same as osi on the market? </font>

<font color="#0000FF">How has kiwi produced more during his career than Brandon marshall?</font> You said it can be argued kiwi has produced more, then you spoke about his value to us both as a way to help your claim that we would get more for kiwi than the Phins got for marshall. If you really think we would get a second round pick for kiwi, then you either play too much madden, or is obviously trolling.

I know deep down in your heart you dont truly believe kiwi would be worth more than brandon marshall on the market. Also, you tried to use kiwi's value to us as an argument for why he is worth more on the market than brandon marshal. Now you are saying manningham also has more value to us than marshal had with the dolphins. So you are basically saying Manninham too would be worth more. LMAO.

Now that i know you are trolling, I can't take this discussion serious anymore.


As I said, you don't understand what "value" is.

You think it is only about quantity. Quantity of yards, quantity of salary, etc.

You think value is absolute in that regard. It is not. "Value" is relative.

Osi is a great pass rusher. One of the best pass rushers in the league. Better than Kiwi, going strictly by their respective career sacks.

But he can't play LB. He's not too good in pass coverage. Most say he "can't play the run", although I say he has improved in that area the past 2 years.

Kiwi is a very good, if not great, DE pass rusher. He can also play LB at a very decent level. He can play coverage and he's been very good against the run. He plays where the Giants ask him to, and he plays well wherever he plays..

Kiwi has what is called "versatility". This makes him "valuable" to the Giants. As valuable as Osi, if not more so, even though he has not racked up nearly as many sacks as Osi.

Value. It's relative.

If i were to move away from stats, your case for who has more value will still come down to who has won more games.

Lets move away from stats.

BM is one of the best run blocking WR's in the game. He is probably the most physical WR in the game of football. He eats up the majority of double teams and he is very dangerous after the catch.

How is he not a valuable player? Lol your argument is such a fail, and i know you know it is. You know we wouldn't get a 2nd round pick for kiwi. You know that teams didn't get rid of BM because of a lack of contributions on the field. You know BM is one of the best WR's in the NFL without even looking at his stats.

Your logic basically comes down to who has won more games, because if the giants never won any championships with kiwi, you wouldnt have even attempted to troll me this long. Shame on me for taking you serious for the the first few pages.

Here are some questions that you will most likely dodge due to your failure as a troll.

You talk about kiwi's versitallity as to why he is valubable.

Well brandon marshall only plays 1 position. So does MJD. What makes MJD so vauable to his team compared to BM?

MJD is good at pass blocking. BM is good at run blocking.
MJD is good with the ball in his hands, BM is good with the ball in his hands.
Teams game plan mainly for shutting down MJD, teams game plan for shutting down BM.
MJD can catch the ball out of the backfield, BM makes big catches all over the field.
MJD plays his heart out anytime he is on the field, and so does BM.
MJD is a pro bowler, BM is a pro bowler.
MJD is the best player on the jags and BM was the best player on Miami last year
MJD hasn't won many games, Brandon marshall has even won more.
They both have no rings.

What makes MJD have so much worth? He is a nicer guy?

Jared Allen only plays one position and he has no rings. Kiwi is versatile. Is kiwi also more vauable to his team than Jared Allen?

giantsfan420
03-19-2012, 03:47 PM
marv, read the post right before your last one.

your kind of making gmens point. BM is one of the best in the game at his position. no doubt, all those things you said ring true. With the way Miami is built right now, with having BM, that team went what? 4-12? Your going to assume I'm making a point u just pointed out about better record means better player fallacy thats not my point. my point is that built right now, BM one of the best in the game at WR, is not the valuable to Miami with where they are RIGHT NOW. WHich is why, they gave him up for 2 3rd rounders I believe, with the hope of building a team where a BM makes the team SB bound or like legit contender.

With Kiwi, and the way our team is built RIGHT NOW, we have plenty of DL, but no LB's really or had none so we asked a DE, Kiwi, to move to LB. He went from DE where he showed flashes of DOMINANCE, people forget he had his JPP games too, 3 sacks one game I velieve vs Washington. ANyway, we move him to LB. And one of the biggest difference in why we won it all and turned it up, is that the players behind the DL, who were finally doing their jobs, the players behind them like Kiwi and Boley. Now Kiwi's play won't show stats like BM shows stats, but for what we needed from our team was the LB's and coverage to take NE's TE's and run game away in the SB for example.

So some would consider Kiwi is more valuable to our team right now bc we have the pieces so many spots, to remove one in Kiwi from his very good transistion to LB, (he was blowing plays up beautifully in the backfield, remember a couple of times he almost got a sack before the PA lol? Or he would destroy the backfield and time it perfectly. Well that is more valuable to us, than BM making circus catches and putting 8 catches a game up to Miami. If it was so valuable, with the way the team is built now, they'd win.

edit-i guess while you shouldn't just solely use the record against your stance, it is or can be a very good indicator of a players value. Like how valuable to a team is an all pro type rb behind a garbage line and can't run good all season? wouldn't solid guards and tackle at that point be more valuable? would you rather have the best wr's with a poor qb or very good wr's with a very good qb? stats don't just equal top value to a team, it just equals top value individually

Marvelousmik
03-19-2012, 05:47 PM
marv, read the post right before your last one.

your kind of making gmens point. BM is one of the best in the game at his position. no doubt, all those things you said ring true. With the way Miami is built right now, with having BM, that team went what? 4-12? Your going to assume I'm making a point u just pointed out about better record means better player fallacy thats not my point. my point is that built right now, BM one of the best in the game at WR, is not the valuable to Miami with where they are RIGHT NOW. WHich is why, they gave him up for 2 3rd rounders I believe, with the hope of building a team where a BM makes the team SB bound or like legit contender.

With Kiwi, and the way our team is built RIGHT NOW, we have plenty of DL, but no LB's really or had none so we asked a DE, Kiwi, to move to LB.

I am happy you joined the convo because i have discussed many topics with you and i know you are a very sesable person and are one of the few people on here who actually understand football. But i had to stop reading there because you joined a little late and missed the whole point.

This whole discussion is because of 2 points Gmen made that i totally disagree with. Everything else are just "facts" that we are both trying to use in order to argue these 2 claims. Those points are

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder)

Its that simple. And i almost feel bad going against kiwi because he is a true Giant and i love him on this team. But since i am not a bias person, i have to keep it real.

There is no nice way to say this, but On field performance is the only thing that shows a players productivity. Eli studies hard in the film room and makes the players around him better, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter unless they produce "ON THE FIELD". wither you like it or not, Marshall didnt just put up big numbers. He soaked up all the double teams and helped open up the running game. The teams he has played for haven't worked out, but is it because he didn't produce for them?
Jared allen didn't get anywhere last year but he still produced.

BM is an A-hole and most owners wouldnt want players like him in their locker room. That i can agree with, and that is the only reason Denver and Miami moved on from him. It is not because he didnt produce for them. If brandon marshall never got into any off field trouble, do you think he would have been traded? As far as productivity goes, brandon marshall is worth a 1st rounder. Because of his behavior, off of the field, teams dont trust him.

There are many good players in the draft or who have came out of free agency that teams passed on not because of their production, but because of their behavior off of the field. Kiwi's production is no where near Brandon marshall's production, and this is common sense. Every analist, reporter, expert, would tell you this. If NFL.com were to put up a poll on which player has produced more during his career, would kiwi beat BM? Come on man.

This is why I feel Gmen is a troll. How could you say something like that and be serious?

Do you think that kiwi would be worth more on the market right now than BM?

dero23
03-19-2012, 06:13 PM
I think if you were our GM and didn't try to get the same "value" in return for Kiwi as the Dolphins did BM, you'd be fired!!!!

giantsfan420
03-19-2012, 06:13 PM
marv, read the post right before your last one.

your kind of making gmens point. BM is one of the best in the game at his position. no doubt, all those things you said ring true. With the way Miami is built right now, with having BM, that team went what? 4-12? Your going to assume I'm making a point u just pointed out about better record means better player fallacy thats not my point. my point is that built right now, BM one of the best in the game at WR, is not the valuable to Miami with where they are RIGHT NOW. WHich is why, they gave him up for 2 3rd rounders I believe, with the hope of building a team where a BM makes the team SB bound or like legit contender.

With Kiwi, and the way our team is built RIGHT NOW, we have plenty of DL, but no LB's really or had none so we asked a DE, Kiwi, to move to LB.

I am happy you joined the convo because i have discussed many topics with you and i know you are a very sesable person and are one of the few people on here who actually understand football. But i had to stop reading there because you joined a little late and missed the whole point.

This whole discussion is because of 2 points Gmen made that i totally disagree with. Everything else are just "facts" that we are both trying to use in order to argue these 2 claims. Those points are

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder)

Its that simple. And i almost feel bad going against kiwi because he is a true Giant and i love him on this team. But since i am not a bias person, i have to keep it real.

There is no nice way to say this, but On field performance is the only thing that shows a players productivity. Eli studies hard in the film room and makes the players around him better, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter unless they produce "ON THE FIELD". wither you like it or not, Marshall didnt just put up big numbers. He soaked up all the double teams and helped open up the running game. The teams he has played for haven't worked out, but is it because he didn't produce for them?
Jared allen didn't get anywhere last year but he still produced.

BM is an A-hole and most owners wouldnt want players like him in their locker room. That i can agree with, and that is the only reason Denver and Miami moved on from him. It is not because he didnt produce for them. If brandon marshall never got into any off field trouble, do you think he would have been traded? As far as productivity goes, brandon marshall is worth a 1st rounder. Because of his behavior, off of the field, teams dont trust him.

There are many good players in the draft or who have came out of free agency that teams passed on not because of their production, but because of their behavior off of the field. Kiwi's production is no where near Brandon marshall's production, and this is common sense. Every analist, reporter, expert, would tell you this. If NFL.com were to put up a poll on which player has produced more during his career, would kiwi beat BM? Come on man.

This is why I feel Gmen is a troll. How could you say something like that and be serious?

*Do you think that kiwi would be worth more on the market right now than BM?




well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value.

For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable.

edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

gmen46
03-19-2012, 07:01 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

You have to be trolling. You said kiwi is worth a second round pick.* Osi has always been a valuable player to us ever since day 1. He came off of a 11.5 sack season and had 10 force fumbles. That being said, we couldnt get a first round pick for osi last year. This means osi would have been of 2nd round value or less.* <font color="#0000FF">How would kiwi be worth the same as osi on the market? </font>

<font color="#0000FF">How has kiwi produced more during his career than Brandon marshall?</font> You said it can be argued kiwi has produced more, then you spoke about his value to us both as a way to help your claim that we would get more for kiwi than the Phins got for marshall. If you really think we would get a second round pick for kiwi, then you either play too much madden, or is obviously trolling.*

I know deep down in your heart you dont truly believe kiwi would be worth more than brandon marshall on the market. Also, you tried to use kiwi's value to us as an argument for why he is worth more on the market than brandon marshal. Now you are saying manningham also has more value to us than marshal had with the dolphins. So you are basically saying Manninham too would be worth more. LMAO.

Now that i know you are trolling, I can't take this discussion serious anymore.


As I said, you don't understand what "value" is.

You think it is only about quantity. Quantity of yards, quantity of salary, etc.

You think value is absolute in that regard. It is not. "Value" is relative.

Osi is a great pass rusher. One of the best pass rushers in the league. Better than Kiwi, going strictly by their respective career sacks.

But he can't play LB. He's not too good in pass coverage. Most say he "can't play the run", although I say he has improved in that area the past 2 years.

Kiwi is a very good, if not great, DE pass rusher. He can also play LB at a very decent level. He can play coverage and he's been very good against the run. He plays where the Giants ask him to, and he plays well wherever he plays..

Kiwi has what is called "versatility". This makes him "valuable" to the Giants. As valuable as Osi, if not more so, even though he has not racked up nearly as many sacks as Osi.

Value. It's relative.

If i were to move away from stats, your case for who has more value will still come down to who has won more games.

Lets move away from stats.

BM is one of the best run blocking WR's in the game. He is probably the most physical WR in the game of football. He eats up the majority of double teams and he is very dangerous after the catch.

How is he not a valuable player?* Lol your argument is such a fail, and i know you know it is. You know we wouldn't get a 2nd round pick for kiwi. You know that teams didn't get rid of BM because of a lack of contributions on the field. You know BM is one of the best WR's in the NFL without even looking at his stats.

Your logic basically comes down to who has won more games, because if the giants never won any championships with kiwi, you wouldnt have even attempted to troll me this long. Shame on me for taking you serious for the the first few pages.

Here are some questions that you will most likely dodge due to your failure as a troll.

You talk about kiwi's versitallity as to why he is valubable.

Well brandon marshall only plays 1 position. So does MJD. What makes MJD so vauable to his team compared to BM?

MJD is good at pass blocking. BM is good at run blocking.
MJD is good with the ball in his hands, BM is good with the ball in his hands.
Teams game plan mainly for shutting down MJD, teams game plan for shutting down BM.
MJD can catch the ball out of the backfield, BM makes big catches all over the field.
MJD plays his heart out anytime he is on the field, and so does BM.
MJD is a pro bowler, BM is a pro bowler.
MJD is the best player on the jags and BM was the best player on Miami last year
MJD hasn't won many games, Brandon marshall has even won more.
They both have no rings.

What makes MJD have so much worth? He is a nicer guy?

Jared Allen only plays one position and he has no rings. Kiwi is versatile. Is kiwi also more vauable to his team than Jared Allen?




Now with THIS post, you at least raise some interesting questions, and attempt to compare apples to apples.

Of course you, once again, make nonsensical conclusions based upon what YOU say I "know".

I DON'T know Kiwi--IF he were to be traded this off season, which he definitely will not be--would NOT garner a 2nd rd draft pick, as you say I do. He might not, that's true.

But it is no stretch to think he very well could.

It's not unheard of for a former 1st rd draft pick who has had at the very least a very respectable career and is in his prime in terms of age (just completed only his 6th season) to be traded for a 2nd rd future pick.

It IS a stretch to imagine a former 2nd rd draft pick who has had a very good career, but is entering his 10th season, would easily garner a 1st rd pick. I'm not saying definitively it has never happened, because I don't know details of every trade that has occurred, but if it has, it happens infrequently if at all.

As for my "knowing" Miami did not get rid of Marshall because of a lack of contributions on the field, I essentially SAID that. I have acknowledged his production (stats) on the field. I have always conceded that.

My point is that a player's real contribution--his value--goes BEYOND any absolute stats.

That's what you refuse to understand.

Your contrast and comparisons of MJD to Marshall is interesting, and at least reasonable, as opposed to your meaningless comparison of Marshall's "production" to that of Kiwi.

But it also underscores my point of "value" to a great degree.

The Jags obviously--and rightly so--recognize they are a MUCH worse team without MJD, and they would do--and have done --anything in their power to retain MJD.

Miami likely recognized Marshall's contribution of production, but also obviously concluded he was worth more to them gone--ie, if they could trade him for multiple picks he was worth more to them than if he returned.

In other words, unlike the Jags with MJD, Miami did NOT do anything in their power to retain Marshall, rather they did everything in their power to get rid of him.

That's what makes MJD "have so much worth" to the Jags.

That's what you obviously do not understand about a player's value to a team.

Jared is also an interesting one to bring up. Of COURSE he has become one of the best ever at his position, year in and year out, including this past season.

And of course as such he is valuable to the Vikings.

Again, you raise the fact that Allen has no rings as if that has ever been my criterion ofr value. It has NEVER been. I have never raised that even in passing.

What I DID raise was the question of how many post season games has Marshall even been in (answer, ZERO). Allen, on the other hand has been in a few with Vikings

Having said that, however, in spite of his near-record-breaking season in sacks, the Vikes' defense was atrocious this year, giving up 2nd half leads that led to losses more times than any other team.

So, his value to the team did very little for the Vikings THIS season, true enough. But his obvious overall value to the team his 4 years with the Vikings, his equally obvious efforts to excel and MAKE HIS TEAM excel, along with his near record in sacks this year, override any perceived failure on his part to prevent his team's defensive failure this year.

I look at it like this. It is quite possible, and most likely, that KC and later the Vikes would have been even worse defensively than they have been the past 8 years with Allen on the team. I argue the same can be said regarding Kiwi, even if we allow for it to be to a lesser extent.

They both have had noticeable positive impact upon their respective teams.

The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. Which is why both of them got rid of him, salvaging a bad situation by at least getting some draft picks.

How many years will it take Chicago to reach the same conclusion? One year, this time? Two? Three?

After 3 years with Cutler as QB getting nowhere, after another Roy Williams experiment disaster, after the Sam Hurd drug- king- of- the- NFL disaster, and after seeing no improvement upon their 2005 Super Bowl failure, how much patience do you think the Bears will have with his women-beating? They have night clubs in Chicago, too.

lawl
03-19-2012, 07:12 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****.

Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL.

I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis.

gmen46
03-19-2012, 07:28 PM
marv, read the post right before your last one.

your kind of making gmens point. BM is one of the best in the game at his position. no doubt, all those things you said ring true. With the way Miami is built right now, with having BM, that team went what? 4-12? Your going to assume I'm making a point u just pointed out about better record means better player fallacy thats not my point. my point is that built right now, BM one of the best in the game at WR, is not the valuable to Miami with where they are RIGHT NOW. WHich is why, they gave him up for 2 3rd rounders I believe, with the hope of building a team where a BM makes the team SB bound or like legit contender.

With Kiwi, and the way our team is built RIGHT NOW, we have plenty of DL, but no LB's really or had none so we asked a DE, Kiwi, to move to LB.

I am happy you joined the convo because i have discussed many topics with you and i know you are a very sesable person and are one of the few people on here who actually understand football. But i had to stop reading there because you joined a little late and missed the whole point.

This whole discussion is because of 2 points Gmen made that i totally disagree with. Everything else are just "facts" that we are both trying to use in order to argue these 2 claims. Those points are

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder)

Its that simple. And i almost feel bad going against kiwi because he is a true Giant and i love him on this team. But since i am not a bias person, i have to keep it real.

There is no nice way to say this, but On field performance is the only thing that shows a players productivity. Eli studies hard in the film room and makes the players around him better, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter unless they produce "ON THE FIELD". wither you like it or not, Marshall didnt just put up big numbers. He soaked up all the double teams and helped open up the running game. The teams he has played for haven't worked out, but is it because he didn't produce for them?
Jared allen didn't get anywhere last year but he still produced.

BM is an A-hole and most owners wouldnt want players like him in their locker room. That i can agree with, and that is the only reason Denver and Miami moved on from him. It is not because he didnt produce for them. If brandon marshall never got into any off field trouble, do you think he would have been traded? As far as productivity goes, brandon marshall is worth a 1st rounder. Because of his behavior, off of the field, teams dont trust him.

There are many good players in the draft or who have came out of free agency that teams passed on not because of their production, but because of their behavior off of the field. Kiwi's production is no where near Brandon marshall's production, and this is common sense. Every analist, reporter, expert, would tell you this. If NFL.com were to put up a poll on which player has produced more during his career, would kiwi beat BM? Come on man.

This is why I feel Gmen is a troll. How could you say something like that and be serious?

*Do you think that kiwi would be worth more on the market right now than BM?




well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value.

For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable.

edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Well said. And much more succinct than I've been.

Thank you, because my head hurts something fierce from all the wall banging.

Yes. Different teams value players differently, in part depending upon their needs of the moment. I've said that, but got nowhere.

A player's value is relative to a given team.

And a player's personality--including off field and locker room behavior--DOES impact his value to the team.

lawl
03-19-2012, 07:40 PM
The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. </P>


Could have been just as bad? Really?I would venture to say that the Dolphins wouldn't have won all 6 games had BM not been on the team this year.</P>


Your argument is stating correlation as causation, which is absolute stupidity. You are saying the Dolphins acquired BM, they didn't get any better with BM, therefore he was of no positive impact to the team. All the while, you take into zero account the overall improvement and play of other positions on the field because as we all know, football is a team sport.</P>


On the other hand, I know for a fact that the Giants can be just as successful without Kiwi as they are with him, as evidenced with our SB win when he was on IR. See!!! It's so GREAT when correlation equals causation..!!!. Isn't it?</P>

gmen46
03-19-2012, 07:49 PM
marv, read the post right before your last one.

your kind of making gmens point. BM is one of the best in the game at his position. no doubt, all those things you said ring true. With the way Miami is built right now, with having BM, that team went what? 4-12? Your going to assume I'm making a point u just pointed out about better record means better player fallacy thats not my point. my point is that built right now, BM one of the best in the game at WR, is not the valuable to Miami with where they are RIGHT NOW. WHich is why, they gave him up for 2 3rd rounders I believe, with the hope of building a team where a BM makes the team SB bound or like legit contender.

With Kiwi, and the way our team is built RIGHT NOW, we have plenty of DL, but no LB's really or had none so we asked a DE, Kiwi, to move to LB.

I am happy you joined the convo because i have discussed many topics with you and i know you are a very sesable person and are one of the few people on here who actually understand football. But i had to stop reading there because you joined a little late and missed the whole point.

This whole discussion is because of 2 points Gmen made that i totally disagree with. Everything else are just "facts" that we are both trying to use in order to argue these 2 claims. Those points are

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder)

Its that simple. And i almost feel bad going against kiwi because he is a true Giant and i love him on this team. But since i am not a bias person, i have to keep it real.

There is no nice way to say this, but On field performance is the only thing that shows a players productivity. Eli studies hard in the film room and makes the players around him better, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter unless they produce "ON THE FIELD". wither you like it or not, Marshall didnt just put up big numbers. He soaked up all the double teams and helped open up the running game. The teams he has played for haven't worked out, but is it because he didn't produce for them?
Jared allen didn't get anywhere last year but he still produced.

BM is an A-hole and most owners wouldnt want players like him in their locker room. That i can agree with, and that is the only reason Denver and Miami moved on from him. It is not because he didnt produce for them. If brandon marshall never got into any off field trouble, do you think he would have been traded? As far as productivity goes, brandon marshall is worth a 1st rounder. Because of his behavior, off of the field, teams dont trust him.

There are many good players in the draft or who have came out of free agency that teams passed on not because of their production, but because of their behavior off of the field. Kiwi's production is no where near Brandon marshall's production, and this is common sense. Every analist, reporter, expert, would tell you this. If NFL.com were to put up a poll on which player has produced more during his career, would kiwi beat BM? Come on man.

This is why I feel Gmen is a troll. How could you say something like that and be serious?

*Do you think that kiwi would be worth more on the market right now than BM?




According to your words--
" If brandon marshall never got into any off field trouble, do you think he would have been traded? As far as productivity goes, brandon marshall is worth a 1st rounder. Because of his behavior, off of the field, teams dont trust him."


EXACTLY!! THAT'S THE ****ING POINT!!!

It is meaningless to say "If Marshall were not......, he'd be....."

The REALITY is that Marshall IS the person he is. You cannot separate his person hood from his ability to catch the ball, and not suffer consequences. His a-holeness is a critical part of who he is. It affects his team mates, his coaches, and ultimately his game.

You claim you're keeping it real? What IS real is teams can't trust him. YOUR words.

If a team can't trustt him, then what good is he to the team?

Again, you want to consider ONLY his stats and consider them his true value. We are NOT talking Fantasy Football. We are NOT talking Madden.

We are talking real life football, with real life players and real life coaches.

And real life consequences to real life behavior.

And, yes, I DO think Kiwi would be worth more to the Giants (at the very least), than Marshall would be to them right now. Just to use one team as an example.

You think that's not serious?

GmenFan1980
03-19-2012, 07:50 PM
The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. </P>


Could have been just as bad? Really?*I would venture to say that the Dolphins wouldn't have won all 6 games had BM not been on the team this year.</P>


Your argument is stating correlation as causation, which is absolute stupidity. You are saying the Dolphins acquired BM, they didn't get any better with BM, therefore he was of no positive impact to the team. All the while, you take into zero account the overall improvement and play of other positions on the field because as we all know, football is a team sport.</P>


*On the other hand, I know for a fact that the Giants can be just as successful without Kiwi as they are with him, as evidenced with our SB win when he was on IR. See!!! It's so GREAT when correlation equals causation..!!!. Isn't it?</P>

I would only like to say I believe Reggie Bush was more responsible for their wins.

Past that I take no part in this argument :)

gmen46
03-19-2012, 08:03 PM
Williams got paid that much because it's 2012 and he's a good DE. When you sign your deal has everything to do with how much you'll get paid.</p>


Kiwi's snaps on the DL were severely limited this year. By the end of the year he was losing a ton of snaps to Dave Tollefson. This year was Kiwi's worst as a pass rusher.</p>


You want to talk about value to a team? Brandon Marshall was the guy drawing double teams, which in turn helped make it possible for Reggie Bush to have a career year. He was the top dog on that offense and the guy you know you had to shut*down going into the game*if you wanted an easy win. And teams still couldnt do it.*It's not as though the Dolphins were*the worst*team in the league. They won 6 games and in 5 of the games they lost it was by 3 points or less. This is not because of some fantasy of yours that Brandon Marshall's play was not all that important. They lost because they had Matt Moore at QB and a mediocre defense. </p>


Brandon Marshall was probably the best player on that team and it's really too bad for Dolphins fans, because if they didnt have him, they would probably be drafting Andrew Luck next month.</p>


I won't comment on our #3 WR's importance when compared to Marshall. </p>


How quickly you forget Marshall abusing my favorite player on the team (Corey Webster) when the Broncos beat us years ago.</p>


His presence is felt and it is much more important to any team's success that he plays on than Kiwi for us here.</p>

I couldn't have worded this any better. But i'd like to add that this guy try's to make a claim that stats dont show true production/value to a team, and when he compares manninghams value to brandon marshall, what is his point based on? Stats. lol. He uses stats in the off season to justify why manningham is worth more to the Giants.

So Basically from his point of view, if a team makes it to the off season, any player from that team is more of value than any other player on a losing team, even if that player on the winning team contributed on a limited basis. That being said, he probably thinks kiwi is more value to us that Jared Allen, or Demarcus ware is or was to their team last year.

He even said it can be argued Kiwi produced more during his career than Marshall has.

I feel like we're bring trolled. Honestly.


You are not being trolled. You are being debated and disagreed with.

The difference between being "trolled" and being disagreed with appears to be lost on you.

There must be a lot of "trolls" in your life.

One reason I keep responding to you is because you insist upon stating your same points over- and -over- and- over -and -over again, as if by simply repeating them will make invalid points valid.

But the main reason I stay on this is you insist upon stating phrases that I DON'T state, as MY "argument", then go on to dispute those nonexistent statements by me.

For example, just in your comments here, you say I claim "stats don't show true production/value to a team", then go on to say I use "stats in the off season to justify why Manningham is worth more to the Giants".

Three things, here.

1) In virtually every post in this thread, I have gone to great length to define my distinction BETWEEN "production" and "value". I have never said "production-slash-value" as you claim here.

That's a big difference. More than that, it is THEE difference between what I believe and what you believe.

So, casually "restating" what I actually say in a way that supports your argument is, at best, convenient and disingenuous.

I have said that at times the two (production and value) CAN be the same, but at times they are NOT the same.

That distinction is at the heart of my point of view on this thread.

The two of you obviously don't see any distinction between the 2 words. I have acknowledged you don't.

2) Here is what I ACTUALLY said (as oppose to what you claim I said)
---
"Put another way, in football, the value a player brings to a team is often WHAT he does and WHEN he does it, as opposed to just accumulating total stats over 16-20 games."

3) I also prefaced my remarks about Manningham's value --IN 2011--by acknowledging I would be wasting my breath with you by saying it. As you show by the above remarks, I have been.

I didn't, in a fit of self-contradiction, just use Manningham's post season stats to make my argument against importance of stats, as you insist.

Instead, in support of my previous point of the value of WHEN certain plays occur, Manningham's contributions during each of the 4 post season games made him more valuable to the Giants THIS PAST SEASON than Marshall and his 1200 yards and 6 TDs were to Miami this past season.

I stand by that statement.

On the one hand, Manningham DID make certain, specific plays that were instrumental in helping the Giants win some, if not all, of their post season games.

On the other hand, I argue that Marshall's REAL value to the Dolphin's THIS PAST SEASON was in the Dolphin's acquisition of two 3rd rd picks from the Bears.

His production in 2011 enabled Miami to leverage that trade.

One player was a key contributor to the Giants' SB run.

The other player, by his "production", had no post season opportunity but enabled Miami to pick up two 3rd rd draft picks.

That, to me, is a difference in two players' value to their respective teams THIS YEAR.

And, to me, my team winning the Super Bowl is more impressive--and more IMPORTANT--than another team's leveraging their best offensive player (according to the both of YOU guys, remember) for a couple of 3rd rd draft picks that may, or may not, convert onto play makers 2,3, 4 years down the road.

The player who directly contributed to the former had more "value" to that team than did the player of the latter team.

It's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. And that's because you have no idea of what the word "value" means in the context of a football team. I have conceded this lack of understanding previously.

Apparently, I have inadequately made my case with both of you, in terms of what I mean when I refer to a player's value to a team. I don't know how I can state my meaning any more clearly.

Equally clear, you both equate a player's "value" ONLY with accumulated stats, and (in Lawl's case, at least) with a player's pay.

Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****.

Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL.

I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis.

You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team.

Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid.

At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE.

In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE

His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production.

That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.

Marvelousmik
03-19-2012, 08:06 PM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value.

For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable.

edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.

2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?

lawl
03-19-2012, 08:10 PM
Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****. Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL. I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis. You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team. Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid. At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE. In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production. That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.</P>


Not true, at all. Kiwi was getting taken off on passing downs,especially in the playoffs.Playing strongside Linebacker in a 4-3 is not a significant role, at all. Your admittance of him playing more lber as opposed to rushing the passer is an admittance of his lessened impact on the field. Kiwi playing SLB has no effect on how well jpp osi and/or tuck were able to clog up running lanes or get after the passer. If anything it was to the contrary. Meaning, the capabilities of our DL made it so Kiwi could stay clean on his way to making plays in the run game.</P>


I haven't mentioned a statline in about 5 pages worth of argument. It's ok if you wish to cling to that though.</P>

gmen46
03-19-2012, 09:02 PM
The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. </P>


Could have been just as bad? Really?*I would venture to say that the Dolphins wouldn't have won all 6 games had BM not been on the team this year.</P>


Your argument is stating correlation as causation, which is absolute stupidity. You are saying the Dolphins acquired BM, they didn't get any better with BM, therefore he was of no positive impact to the team. All the while, you take into zero account the overall improvement and play of other positions on the field because as we all know, football is a team sport.</P>


*On the other hand, I know for a fact that the Giants can be just as successful without Kiwi as they are with him, as evidenced with our SB win when he was on IR. See!!! It's so GREAT when correlation equals causation..!!!. Isn't it?</P>

So, Kiwi missing SB XLII is your argument?

That's your best?

How about when he played starting LB his 2nd year in the league because he was directed to, even though he was drafted 1st rd as DE and even though DE is the only position he wanted to play? No complaints. While it took him a few games, he was becoming good at it, until he broke his leg.

How about the following year, after the entire off season of OTAs, mini camp, training camp, and 4 pre season games of training for and playing LB, he steps in for Osi as starting DE, Week One, and doesn't miss a beat as DE?

How about the year after that he goes back to backing up Osi at DE, no complaints, actually earning starting DE for the last 5-6 games of the season?

How about the year after THAT, he's asked to play LB and part-time DE--and leads the team with 4 sacks after only 3 games?

And how about when he continues that role this past season, coming off a possible career-threatening slipped disc in his neck? And he came into this past season knowing the team wanted him in that hybrid role because they VALUED him playing both positions?

Team sport? Damn right, I know it's a team sport.

And it takes great TEAM players to help win the team's sport.

As for Marshall and your "team sport". Why would any team, let alone Miami, trade two 2nd rd picks for a #1 WR, if not to make their team IMMEDIATELY better?

Otherwise, why not keep those 2 high picks and use at least 1 of them to select a rookie WR, if you're going to have to wait more than 2 years to see results from that receiver anyway?

Let's set aside, just for a moment, the fact that Miami went 7-9 Marshall's first year with them (after a 6-10 previous season), and 6-10 Marshall's second year (2011) with them.

On second thought, it is kinda hard to ignore that fact, especially since GMs and coaches (especially coaches) are so frequently evaluated in terms of wins and losses.

Acknowledging football is a team sport--as i do and always have--how and what position(s) did Marshall's presence there help improve?

And, if he did, to what end? A 6-10 record, the same as BEFORE he went there? Oh, so you say Miami "probably" would not have even won 6 games without Marshall? So? You mean Miami finishing last--AGAIN--in their division was better THIS time, better than if they had finished last in their division with a 4-12 record, or 2-14?

A third consecutive season with a losing record is still a third consecutive season with a losing record. And last in the division is still...well, you know the rest.

Yeah, I know it's cool and fun to sing that old song "correlation does not equal causation". And sometimes that is true. Maybe most of the time it's true.

But, sometimes...................a cigar is just a cigar, you know?

gmen46
03-19-2012, 09:24 PM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value.

For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable.

edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.

2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?


Keep these four things in mind:

1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole
2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding?
AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole

3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now?
4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?

gmen46
03-19-2012, 09:30 PM
The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. </P>


Could have been just as bad? Really?*I would venture to say that the Dolphins wouldn't have won all 6 games had BM not been on the team this year.</P>


Your argument is stating correlation as causation, which is absolute stupidity. You are saying the Dolphins acquired BM, they didn't get any better with BM, therefore he was of no positive impact to the team. All the while, you take into zero account the overall improvement and play of other positions on the field because as we all know, football is a team sport.</P>


*On the other hand, I know for a fact that the Giants can be just as successful without Kiwi as they are with him, as evidenced with our SB win when he was on IR. See!!! It's so GREAT when correlation equals causation..!!!. Isn't it?</P>

I would only like to say I believe Reggie Bush was more responsible for their wins.

Past that I take no part in this argument :)

http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/chicken-little.html#/?page=Trailer

AHA!

lawl
03-19-2012, 09:50 PM
The Broncos, and later Miami, could have been just as bad as they have been WITH or WITHOUT Brandon Marshall over the past 6 seasons. With all his catches, and all his yards, he's had no visible positive impact on those teams. </P>


Could have been just as bad? Really?*I would venture to say that the Dolphins wouldn't have won all 6 games had BM not been on the team this year.</P>


Your argument is stating correlation as causation, which is absolute stupidity. You are saying the Dolphins acquired BM, they didn't get any better with BM, therefore he was of no positive impact to the team. All the while, you take into zero account the overall improvement and play of other positions on the field because as we all know, football is a team sport.</P>


*On the other hand, I know for a fact that the Giants can be just as successful without Kiwi as they are with him, as evidenced with our SB win when he was on IR. See!!! It's so GREAT when correlation equals causation..!!!. Isn't it?</P>

So, Kiwi missing SB XLII is your argument?

That's your best?

How about when he played starting LB his 2nd year in the league because he was directed to, even though he was drafted 1st rd as DE and even though DE is the only position he wanted to play? No complaints. While it took him a few games, he was becoming good at it, until he broke his leg.

How about the following year, after the entire off season of OTAs, mini camp, training camp, and 4 pre season games of training for and playing LB, he steps in for Osi as starting DE, Week One, and doesn't miss a beat as DE?

How about the year after that he goes back to backing up Osi at DE, no complaints, actually earning starting DE for the last 5-6 games of the season?

How about the year after THAT, he's asked to play LB and part-time DE--and leads the team with 4 sacks after only 3 games?

And how about when he continues that role this past season, coming off a possible career-threatening slipped disc in his neck? And he came into this past season knowing the team wanted him in that hybrid role because they VALUED him playing both positions?

Team sport? Damn right, I know it's a team sport.

And it takes great TEAM players to help win the team's sport.

As for Marshall and your "team sport". Why would any team, let alone Miami, trade two 2nd rd picks for a #1 WR, if not to make their team IMMEDIATELY better?

Otherwise, why not keep those 2 high picks and use at least 1 of them to select a rookie WR, if you're going to have to wait more than 2 years to see results from that receiver anyway?

Let's set aside, just for a moment, the fact that Miami went 7-9 Marshall's first year with them (after a 6-10 previous season), and 6-10 Marshall's second year (2011) with them.

On second thought, it is kinda hard to ignore that fact, especially since GMs and coaches (especially coaches) are so frequently evaluated in terms of wins and losses.

Acknowledging football is a team sport--as i do and always have--how and what position(s) did Marshall's presence there help improve?

And, if he did, to what end? A 6-10 record, the same as BEFORE he went there? Oh, so you say Miami "probably" would not have even won 6 games without Marshall? So? You mean Miami finishing last--AGAIN--in their division was better THIS time, better than if they had finished last in their division with a 4-12 record, or 2-14?

A third consecutive season with a losing record is still a third consecutive season with a losing record. And last in the division is still...well, you know the rest.


Yeah, I know it's cool and fun to sing that old song "correlation does not equal causation". And sometimes that is true. Maybe most of the time it's true.

But, sometimes...................a cigar is just a cigar, you know?

Again, you are saying absolutely nothing. No, my argument isn't that we won a SB without kiwi. In fact l, I showed you why it is such a stupid argument to the tune of your argument.

Marshall immediately provided their offense with a guy that has to be accounted for on every play. Very few corners can stay with him one on one. Not even our own Corey Webster could. Don't remember the one handed grabs over Cweb while he was in Denver? I sure do.

There are hundreds of variables as to why the dolphins were bad when bm was there and when he wasnt. You have no proof, no substance, no nothing that can clearly show that his great play was somehow a root cause of them not getting better. Just pure conjecture. BM was not the only personnel change they have made in the past 2 years.Them upgrading a position surely wasn't why they were a worse team, but hey they got better or were just as good with bm on their team as they were the year previous

I could care less how nice and humble a guy kiwi is. What they do on the field is what matters to me. He's missed about a seasons worth of games, Has been a rotational player and now the vast majority of his snaps come at the least important position on the field. He is just not that big of an impact on the field for us. Especially when compared to a player of Brandon marshalls caliber.

I will repeat this. You have absolutely zero proof as to quantify or qualify kiwi's value when compared to Brandon Marshall. And I will go even further. You tried to justify kiwi playing linebacker as being more significant because it allows him more snaps. Well the problem with that is you then have to account for the 1000s of extra plays that brandon marshall has provided his team during kiwis absence.

Good luck.

lawl
03-19-2012, 10:04 PM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points charttwo 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

gmen46
03-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****. Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL. I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis. You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team. Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid. At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE. In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production. That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.</P>


Not true, at all. Kiwi was getting taken off on passing downs,*especially in the playoffs.*Playing strongside Linebacker in a 4-3 is not a significant role, at all. Your admittance of him playing more lber as opposed to rushing the passer is an admittance of his lessened impact on the field. Kiwi playing SLB has no effect on how well jpp osi and/or tuck were able to clog up running lanes or get after the passer. If anything it was to the contrary. Meaning, the capabilities of our DL made it so Kiwi could stay clean on his way to making plays in the run game.</P>


I haven't mentioned a statline in about 5 pages worth of argument. It's ok if you wish to cling to that though.</P>

Oh, snap! You really got me on that one!

Except, which of the 6 points I made are you rejecting?

That he wasn't rushing the passer this year as much as he has in the past?

That he was playing LB more?

That he was on the field more, as a result of his dual role?

That his production last year was not reflected in sacks, QB hurries and hits?



Oh, I see. You reject my "his performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production".

And you reject my "he was on the field more and thus producing more" declaration.

So we disagree on 2 of my points of contention.

On the other hand, you claim MY admittance of him playing more LB as opposed to rushing the passer, is an amazing "admittance of his lessened impact on the field".

Tell me, then. How is it that his 84 tackles for the year for 4th most on the team, right behind JPP's 86 tackles and Rolle's team best 96 tackles qualifies in your mind as "lessened impact on the field"?

Not to mention (but I will) 3.5 sacks, 1 forced fumble, 1 recovered fumble, 1 interception, and 3 defensed passes.

Not fewer sacks, QB hurries or hurries, but "LESSENED IMPACT ON THE FIELD" is your defense for stating "Kiwi was just not that important to our success this year"?

And I'M the one who's full of sht??

lawl
03-19-2012, 10:21 PM
If Kiwi had stayed healthy as much as BM has and had maintained his role as the starting DE or the 3rd DE then I would fully agree that he was the more valuable player. However, that has simply not been the case.

lawl
03-19-2012, 10:31 PM
Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****. Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL. I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis. You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team. Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid. At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE. In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production. That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.</P>


Not true, at all. Kiwi was getting taken off on passing downs,especially in the playoffs.Playing strongside Linebacker in a 4-3 is not a significant role, at all. Your admittance of him playing more lber as opposed to rushing the passer is an admittance of his lessened impact on the field. Kiwi playing SLB has no effect on how well jpp osi and/or tuck were able to clog up running lanes or get after the passer. If anything it was to the contrary. Meaning, the capabilities of our DL made it so Kiwi could stay clean on his way to making plays in the run game.</P>


I haven't mentioned a statline in about 5 pages worth of argument. It's ok if you wish to cling to that though.</P>


Oh, snap! You really got me on that one! Except, which of the 6 points I made are you rejecting? That he wasn't rushing the passer this year as much as he has in the past? That he was playing LB more? That he was on the field more, as a result of his dual role? That his production last year was not reflected in sacks, QB hurries and hits? Oh, I see. You reject my "his performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production". And you reject my "he was on the field more and thus producing more" declaration. So we disagree on 2 of my points of contention. On the other hand, you claim MY admittance of him playing more LB as opposed to rushing the passer, is an amazing "admittance of his lessened impact on the field". Tell me, then. How is it that his 84 tackles for the year for 4th most on the team, right behind JPP's 86 tackles and Rolle's team best 96 tackles qualifies in your mind as "lessened impact on the field"? Not to mention (but I will) 3.5 sacks, 1 forced fumble, 1 recovered fumble, 1 interception, and 3 defensed passes. Not fewer sacks, QB hurries or hurries, but "LESSENED IMPACT ON THE FIELD" is your defense for stating "Kiwi was just not that important to our success this year"? And I'M the one who's full of sht??</P>


Oh my goodness!</P>


So many stats!! Shall I provide you Brandon Marshall's?</P>


He did have a lessened impact on the field. See I'm talking about value, and a guy that plays primarily strongside linebacker and gets a few snaps on the DL and is taken out on passing downs isn't going to provide your team with as much impact as a true #1 WR that produces as one. You can bring up all the stats in the world that you want, but you will just never truly understand what I mean about value. Value.</P>


I wonder if you'll notice what I did there?</P>

lawl
03-19-2012, 10:44 PM
It should be noted. Kiwi was so vital in our playoff run that he started just 1 game and had 5 tackles. He did not record a single official stat in the Super Bowl.</P>


</P>


Value at its finest.</P>

gmen46
03-19-2012, 11:00 PM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points chart*two 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

I did not DIRECTLY address question 1 this go round, because I thought I have addressed it, one way or another, in nearly every single post I have made on this thread. I just have not QUANTIFIED the response, which is the only way you and Marv Mik seem to like it.

I'm glad you noted the round equivalencies of the picks because I was not sure.

That is what I was assuming , by the way, when I made my response of 2nd rd for Kiwi, that it was equivalent to, not better than, Bears' trade for BM. So if I said, or made it seem I believed, that Kiwi would garner MORE than Marshall, then my mistake.

I say "my mistake" more due to my belief that there will ALWAYS be a team owner or GM SOMEWHERE who will over pay a Branden Marshall, rather than my perspective of his true value.

I don't think I actually said in so many words that Kiwi would "get more" than BM in trade, just that he COULD get a 2nd.

And I stand by that.

It seems that Marv has been assuming a 2nd rd is worth more than two 3rds, maybe?

gmen46
03-19-2012, 11:20 PM
Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****. Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL. I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis. You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team. Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid. At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE. In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production. That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.</P>


Not true, at all. Kiwi was getting taken off on passing downs,*especially in the playoffs.*Playing strongside Linebacker in a 4-3 is not a significant role, at all. Your admittance of him playing more lber as opposed to rushing the passer is an admittance of his lessened impact on the field. Kiwi playing SLB has no effect on how well jpp osi and/or tuck were able to clog up running lanes or get after the passer. If anything it was to the contrary. Meaning, the capabilities of our DL made it so Kiwi could stay clean on his way to making plays in the run game.</P>


I haven't mentioned a statline in about 5 pages worth of argument. It's ok if you wish to cling to that though.</P>


Oh, snap! You really got me on that one! Except, which of the 6 points I made are you rejecting? That he wasn't rushing the passer this year as much as he has in the past? That he was playing LB more? That he was on the field more, as a result of his dual role? That his production last year was not reflected in sacks, QB hurries and hits? Oh, I see. You reject my "his performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production". And you reject my "he was on the field more and thus producing more" declaration. So we disagree on 2 of my points of contention. On the other hand, you claim MY admittance of him playing more LB as opposed to rushing the passer, is an amazing "admittance of his lessened impact on the field". Tell me, then. How is it that his 84 tackles for the year for 4th most on the team, right behind JPP's 86 tackles and Rolle's team best 96 tackles qualifies in your mind as "lessened impact on the field"? Not to mention (but I will) 3.5 sacks, 1 forced fumble, 1 recovered fumble, 1 interception, and 3 defensed passes. Not fewer sacks, QB hurries or hurries, but "LESSENED IMPACT ON THE FIELD" is your defense for stating "Kiwi was just not that important to our success this year"? And I'M the one who's full of sht??</P>


Oh my goodness!</P>


So many stats!! Shall I provide you Brandon Marshall's?</P>


He did have a lessened impact on the field. See I'm talking about value, and a guy that plays primarily strongside linebacker and gets a few snaps on the DL and is taken out on passing downs isn't going to provide your team with as much impact as a true #1 WR that produces as one. You can bring up all the stats in the world that you want, but you will just never truly understand what I mean about value. Value.</P>


I wonder if you'll notice what I did there?</P>

Yes, I saw what you did there. Did you notice what I did there?

You're beginning to get it.

In your haste to punk me, you make my point. My work may be done here.

We just don't agree on the outcome.

To answer a previous post of yours, I of course did not say or imply that Marshall's performance was a CAUSE of Miami's poor year. That would indeed be ridiculous.

I'm saying Miami was bad IN SPITE of Marshall's performance.

He did nothing to help Miami. I know it's a team sport and that all others on the team have to perform well and perform their tasks properly in order for a team to succeed.

But all the others are not paid $9 million a year, either. The team was willing to pay that because that was worth the price of success.

Well, he wasn;t worth the price, they did not succeed one iota with Marshall on the team, and he's gone, gone, GONE.

lawl
03-19-2012, 11:33 PM
Right, I know your argument and im telling you youre full of ****. Kiwi did not make a bigger impact on the field for us than Marshall did for the dolphins. This was kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher and at the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL. I get what you're saying. It's very similar to the notion that guys that win the MVP should be on a winning team, but kiwi was just not that important to our success this year as Marshall was to his team's success even if that success was on a limited basis. You keep doing the same thing, equating statistical numbers with a players value to a team. Kiwi's worst year as a pass rusher? BECAUSE HE WASN'T RUSHING THE PASSER AS MUCH this year. That was only a partial role he played, as LB and DE hybrid. At the end of the year he was barely getting snaps on the DL? Because he was PLAYING LB MORE. In his role this season, he was on the field, more, and thus producing more, than he would have as simply a rotational DE His performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production. That is not reflected in sacks or qb hurries or qb hits. It IS reflected in the performances of the line, most especially the last 6 games.</P>


Not true, at all. Kiwi was getting taken off on passing downs,*especially in the playoffs.*Playing strongside Linebacker in a 4-3 is not a significant role, at all. Your admittance of him playing more lber as opposed to rushing the passer is an admittance of his lessened impact on the field. Kiwi playing SLB has no effect on how well jpp osi and/or tuck were able to clog up running lanes or get after the passer. If anything it was to the contrary. Meaning, the capabilities of our DL made it so Kiwi could stay clean on his way to making plays in the run game.</P>


I haven't mentioned a statline in about 5 pages worth of argument. It's ok if you wish to cling to that though.</P>


Oh, snap! You really got me on that one! Except, which of the 6 points I made are you rejecting? That he wasn't rushing the passer this year as much as he has in the past? That he was playing LB more? That he was on the field more, as a result of his dual role? That his production last year was not reflected in sacks, QB hurries and hits? Oh, I see. You reject my "his performance this year behind the line went a long way to enabling JPP, Osi, and Tuck to maximize their production". And you reject my "he was on the field more and thus producing more" declaration. So we disagree on 2 of my points of contention. On the other hand, you claim MY admittance of him playing more LB as opposed to rushing the passer, is an amazing "admittance of his lessened impact on the field". Tell me, then. How is it that his 84 tackles for the year for 4th most on the team, right behind JPP's 86 tackles and Rolle's team best 96 tackles qualifies in your mind as "lessened impact on the field"? Not to mention (but I will) 3.5 sacks, 1 forced fumble, 1 recovered fumble, 1 interception, and 3 defensed passes. Not fewer sacks, QB hurries or hurries, but "LESSENED IMPACT ON THE FIELD" is your defense for stating "Kiwi was just not that important to our success this year"? And I'M the one who's full of sht??</P>


Oh my goodness!</P>


So many stats!! Shall I provide you Brandon Marshall's?</P>


He did have a lessened impact on the field. See I'm talking about value, and a guy that plays primarily strongside linebacker and gets a few snaps on the DL and is taken out on passing downs isn't going to provide your team with as much impact as a true #1 WR that produces as one. You can bring up all the stats in the world that you want, but you will just never truly understand what I mean about value. Value.</P>


I wonder if you'll notice what I did there?</P>

Yes, I saw what you did there. Did you notice what I did there?

You're beginning to get it.

We just don't agree on the outcome.

To answer a previous post of yours, I of course did not say or imply that Marshall's performance was a CAUSE of Miami's poor year. That would indeed be ridiculous.

I'm saying Miami was bad IN SPITE of Marshall's performance.

He did nothing to help Miami. I know it's a team sport and that all others on the team have to perform well and perform their tasks properly in order for a team to succeed.

But all the others are not paid $9 million a year, either. The team was willing to pay that because that was worth the price of success.

Well, he wasn;t worth the price, they did not succeed one iota with Marshall on the team, and he's gone, gone, GONE.

He did do something to help Miami. He did as much as he could humanly possibly do. Scoring a td in a game where you win by less than a td helps your team win. Catching balls that lead to scoring drives helps your team win. Hell, catching balls that sustain drives(that aren't scoring drives) that gets your d some rest and keeps their d on the field all help your team win games. He produced about as much as any WR in the league would with henne and Moore throwing him the ball. Statistical output has more meaning than you're leading on.

Playing well on a ****ty team doesn't mean you're providing less an impact on the outcome of the game.

Edit note: reread that previous post of mine. I didn't infer that you said that the phins got worse because of bm.

lawl
03-19-2012, 11:40 PM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points chart*two 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

I did not DIRECTLY address question 1 this go round, because I thought I have addressed it, one way or another, in nearly every single post I have made on this thread. I just have not QUANTIFIED the response, which is the only way you and Marv Mik seem to like it.

I'm glad you noted the round equivalencies of the picks because I was not sure.

That is what I was assuming , by the way, when I made my response of 2nd rd for Kiwi, that it was equivalent to, not better than, Bears' trade for BM. So if I said, or made it seem I believed, that Kiwi would garner MORE than Marshall, then my mistake.

I say "my mistake" more due to my belief that there will ALWAYS be a team owner or GM SOMEWHERE who will over pay a Branden Marshall, rather than my perspective of his true value.

I don't think I actually said in so many words that Kiwi would "get more" than BM in trade, just that he COULD get a 2nd.

And I stand by that.

It seems that Marv has been assuming a 2nd rd is worth more than two 3rds, maybe?

I don't know kiwis trade value. Kiwi is 29 and going into his final year of his contract, so if there were a time to trade I would think now would be the time.

I feel like kiwi could get a pretty big contract somewhere to be a full-time pass rusher but if he stays in his current role with us, I don't see a huge payday being a smart idea.

bigblue5611
03-19-2012, 11:53 PM
i've got a pretty good feeling my main dude Mr Jerry Reese has this under control!! :)

gmen46
03-20-2012, 12:23 AM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points chart*two 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

I did not DIRECTLY address question 1 this go round, because I thought I have addressed it, one way or another, in nearly every single post I have made on this thread. I just have not QUANTIFIED the response, which is the only way you and Marv Mik seem to like it.

I'm glad you noted the round equivalencies of the picks because I was not sure.

That is what I was assuming , by the way, when I made my response of 2nd rd for Kiwi, that it was equivalent to, not better than, Bears' trade for BM. So if I said, or made it seem I believed, that Kiwi would garner MORE than Marshall, then my mistake.

I say "my mistake" more due to my belief that there will ALWAYS be a team owner or GM SOMEWHERE who will over pay a Branden Marshall, rather than my perspective of his true value.

I don't think I actually said in so many words that Kiwi would "get more" than BM in trade, just that he COULD get a 2nd.

And I stand by that.

It seems that Marv has been assuming a 2nd rd is worth more than two 3rds, maybe?

I don't know kiwis trade value. Kiwi is 29 and going into his final year of his contract, so if there were a time to trade I would think now would be the time.

I feel like kiwi could get a pretty big contract somewhere to be a full-time pass rusher but if he stays in his current role with us, I don't see a huge payday being a smart idea.

Well, I don't believe Kiwi will be traded. But the OP of this thread did begin with "I think we should consider trading Kiwi", so I went with it.

JR certainly will not offer him on the block, imo. If a team came along and offered a HIGH 2nd rd pick this year, then he'd have to consider it, of course, as he always says he does.

But I haven't heard even a whisper of any team interested in a trade so far . Still 6 weeks or so until Draft Day, so.............

Next year will be a challenge. Offer Osi new contract or not? Offer Kiwi new contract or not? If yes to either or both, how much and how long, of course.

My feeling is that JR will do everything he can to retain 1 of them. He won't know which way to lean, of course, until after next year.

I really don't think he WANTS to choose only one of the two, just that he likely won't have much choice in the matter and he will need to focus on one over the other. Whichever one he favors, I'm confident he will get it done.

It's really tough. Osi brings a specialty to the defense that in truth only a handful can match or surpass. But it IS a specialty.

Kiwi brings all the things I've mentioned, which I am convinced Giants value more than if he were strictly a DE, even tho many on here don't agree with that.

The 3 years separating the 2 COULD also be a deciding factor, who knows? When you're trying to look into the future, age has to be considered.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-20-2012, 01:10 AM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points chart*two 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

I did not DIRECTLY address question 1 this go round, because I thought I have addressed it, one way or another, in nearly every single post I have made on this thread. I just have not QUANTIFIED the response, which is the only way you and Marv Mik seem to like it.

I'm glad you noted the round equivalencies of the picks because I was not sure.

That is what I was assuming , by the way, when I made my response of 2nd rd for Kiwi, that it was equivalent to, not better than, Bears' trade for BM. So if I said, or made it seem I believed, that Kiwi would garner MORE than Marshall, then my mistake.

I say "my mistake" more due to my belief that there will ALWAYS be a team owner or GM SOMEWHERE who will over pay a Branden Marshall, rather than my perspective of his true value.

I don't think I actually said in so many words that Kiwi would "get more" than BM in trade, just that he COULD get a 2nd.

And I stand by that.

It seems that Marv has been assuming a 2nd rd is worth more than two 3rds, maybe?

I don't know kiwis trade value. Kiwi is 29 and going into his final year of his contract, so if there were a time to trade I would think now would be the time.

I feel like kiwi could get a pretty big contract somewhere to be a full-time pass rusher but if he stays in his current role with us, I don't see a huge payday being a smart idea.

Actually trading a guy in the last year of his contract, in the NFL, guaruntees that you will not get face value for him b/c no team is going to trade alot of assets for the guys AND pay himm a big contract. That's something that's more common in the NBA, not in the NFL.

It's a matter a JR making a decision as to whether the compensation he would get from trading Kiwi is more valuable than having Kiwi for one more season.

Bears traded for BM, but he's still got a couple of years left on his contract. They've got him for a couple of years, that's why they were willing to give up so much. They traded two potential long term players (the two 3rd rounders) for one long term starter.

Since they could lose him at the end of the season, they would not give up as much in assets for Kiwi. And besides, you also have to remember that when you lose guys like Kiwi you get comp picks anyway, and those have to figure into the equation as well.

Marvelousmik
03-20-2012, 05:03 AM
Okay, enough is enough. Stop with the player valuable BS.
For all i know, the browns value colt mecoy more than the packers value Aaron rodgers. Who knows? And who cares? We know damn well mecoy didn't produce more than Rodgers, and we both know Rodgers is worth more on the market.

You said kiwi produced more than brandon marshall has his entire career, and you stated that right now kiwi is worth more on the market than brandon marshall. This is what started this whole discussion and this is what its all about.

You are using kiwi's value to us as a way to try and support your claim that kiwi is worth more on the market, and that kiwi produced more during his career.

To all the posters who are in this argument, please understand one thing. I will say it again. This is about who produced more during their career, and who is worth more on the market right now. I am not debating who is worth more to their perspective teams. i couldnt care less.

I also found it funny that you said



In other words, unlike the Jags with MJD, Miami did NOT do anything in
their power to retain Marshall, rather they did everything in their
power to get rid of him.

That's what makes MJD "have so much worth" to the Jags.


This has nothing to do with what makes MJD so much worth to the jags. This may show that his team values him, but it doesnt show why. And when i say why i mean what did he do different from BM for them to value him. Just like every claim you've tried to make so far, you failed yet again to give a valid answer backed up by facts. Face of the franchise and this last example you gave doesn't tell me how or why his team values him as a player.

If i get another reply talking about who is more valuable to their team i wont even reply.

This discussion is about two things.

Gmen said kiwi produced more in his career than brandon marshall has.
You also said right now kiwi would be worth more on the market (2nd round pick)

gmen46
03-20-2012, 06:12 AM
Okay, enough is enough. Stop with the player valuable BS.
For all i know, the browns value colt mecoy more than the packers value Aaron rodgers. Who knows? And who cares? We know damn well mecoy didn't produce more than Rodgers, and we both know Rodgers is worth more on the market.

You said kiwi produced more than brandon marshall has his entire career, and you stated that right now kiwi is worth more on the market than brandon marshall. This is what started this whole discussion and this is what its all about.

You are using kiwi's value to us as a way to try and support your claim that kiwi is worth more on the market, and that kiwi produced more during his career.

To all the posters who are in this argument, please understand one thing. I will say it again. This is about who produced more during their career, and who is worth more on the market right now. I am not debating who is worth more to their perspective teams. i couldnt care less.

I also found it funny that you said



In other words, unlike the Jags with MJD, Miami did NOT do anything in
their power to retain Marshall, rather they did everything in their
power to get rid of him.

That's what makes MJD "have so much worth" to the Jags.


This has nothing to do with what makes MJD so much worth to the jags. This may show that his team values him, but it doesnt show why. And when i say why i mean what did he do different from BM for them to value him. Just like every claim you've tried to make so far, you failed yet again to give a valid answer backed up by facts. Face of the franchise and this last example you gave doesn't tell me how or why his team values him as a player.

If i get another reply talking about who is more valuable to their team i wont even reply.

This discussion is about two things.

Gmen said kiwi produced more in his career than brandon marshall has.
You also said right now kiwi would be worth more on the market (2nd round pick)


Yes, oh wise and mighty one!!

It is YOU who determines what any discussion is "really about", not whoever is engaged in the conversation.

It is YOU who determines what is a valid answer and what is not.

It is YOU who determines what is defined and if it is a satisfactory definition.

It is YOU who knows what someone else said, not the person who said it.

It is YOU who knows what he is talking about, not anyone who disagrees with him.

It is YOU who is arrogant enough to think that anyone, let alone me, actually gives a flying **** if you "even reply" or not.

And it is YOU who insists this discussion "is about two things".

How I could possibly forget THAT, is beyond me.

Are you finding it too difficult to think about more than two things in any given discussion? Or any given day?

Should I now bow to the inevitable weight of your all powerful wisdom and knowledge?

'Cause, I gotta tell you, THAT'S not gonna happen.

By the way, I did say Kiwi COULD be worth a 2nd rd pick, yes, I did.

But it is YOU who assumes that means I'm saying he is worth "more" than Marshall. How do you arrive at that assumption, when a 2nd rd equals two 3rd rd picks (given to Miami for Marshall)?.

And, perhaps most importantly, how do you know what a player is "worth" in the free agency market, when it is individual teams that offer what THEY think a player is worth to them, but you "couldn't care less" who is worth more to their "perspective" (sic) teams?

How is that even possible?

How does a team know what to offer a given player, if their judgment of value is of no interest to YOU?

Is there some mysterious table of trade metrics that I am not privy to and that you are? Is there one, and only one, metric on that mysterious chart that spells out what can be traded for Kiwi and what can be traded for Marshall? And do all the teams adhere to this table, or do only some of them adhere to it?

And, last but not least, will the Bears have any say in what they are willing to accept in exchange for Marshall when they--as they inevitably will be--are anxious to get rid of him, too? Or will they be bound to this mythical table of trade metrics?

Since you appear to believe this table exists, I expect you know all the answers to these questions.

lawl
03-20-2012, 08:22 AM
well hmm, see thats what i'm saying, for different teams value is different bc of where the team is at from a personnel stand point. i'd be like if i were to build a house and i started with the roof...having a BM only works when you have the ol to block, the qb to throw, and a d that can stop the other o. otherwise, why want BM when having a better OL would help you win more games? the OL would have better value. For the Giants, who do you think right now they would value or want first if say we had our exact roster minus Kiwi, a very good DE converted to a good LB to plug into our LB corp that lacks talent, or BM added to a WR core that already has Nicks, Cruz, and for this discussion had MM. Who would be more valuable to the team to have? I'm not saying I dont agree with your stance more so, I'm just trying to give a better POV from his stance so u understand it a lil more cleary bc I get where he's coming from, but BM to more teams would prob be more valuable. edit-some people will feel for the giants kiwi is more valuable. its subjective.

Keep these 2 things in mind. This is what i disagree with.

1.<FONT size=5> Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder</FONT>).

Knowing JR, if both kiwi and BM could be taken for the same exact price, and he had to choose one, JR would go with the best player available and choose BM. He wouldnt go with need.

*Its not about how much we value kiwi, its about these two things.

1. Kiwi has produced more for the giants than Marshall has his whole career.
2. Right now kiwi would be worth more than BM if he was on the market. (2nd rounder).

Do you agree with this?
Keep these four things in mind: 1) JR wouldn't touch Marshall with a 10 foot pole 2) If he DID have to choose between Kiwi and BM, he would not pay BM $9 million--he has 2 WRs now that are light years ahead of BM, and for a COMBINED salary one third less than Marshall's, are you fkn kidding? AND he would still not use that 10 foot pole 3) Knowing those realities, if JR had to choose between Kiwi and BM right NOW, he would choose Kiwi. JR chooses best available player that fits need. You don't know that by now? 4) And knowing THAT, it really does not matter--at all-- if you don't agree Kiwi is worth a 2nd rd "on the market" because JR would not ACCEPT less than a 2nd rd. Why on earth would he?</P>


I agree with all of this.</P>


That said, you didnt touch on his two main points at all, which I have bolded. You just disagreed that we would take BM over Kiwi. Also, I will say that according to the points chart*two 3rd rounders is equivalent to a second round pick. How high the 3rd rounders are determines how high the equivalent 2nd rounder would be, of course.</P>

I did not DIRECTLY address question 1 this go round, because I thought I have addressed it, one way or another, in nearly every single post I have made on this thread. I just have not QUANTIFIED the response, which is the only way you and Marv Mik seem to like it.

I'm glad you noted the round equivalencies of the picks because I was not sure.

That is what I was assuming , by the way, when I made my response of 2nd rd for Kiwi, that it was equivalent to, not better than, Bears' trade for BM. So if I said, or made it seem I believed, that Kiwi would garner MORE than Marshall, then my mistake.

I say "my mistake" more due to my belief that there will ALWAYS be a team owner or GM SOMEWHERE who will over pay a Branden Marshall, rather than my perspective of his true value.

I don't think I actually said in so many words that Kiwi would "get more" than BM in trade, just that he COULD get a 2nd.

And I stand by that.

It seems that Marv has been assuming a 2nd rd is worth more than two 3rds, maybe?

I don't know kiwis trade value. Kiwi is 29 and going into his final year of his contract, so if there were a time to trade I would think now would be the time.

I feel like kiwi could get a pretty big contract somewhere to be a full-time pass rusher but if he stays in his current role with us, I don't see a huge payday being a smart idea.

Actually trading a guy in the last year of his contract, in the NFL, guaruntees that you will not get face value for him b/c no team is going to trade alot of assets for the guys AND pay himm a big contract. That's something that's more common in the NBA, not in the NFL.

It's a matter a JR making a decision as to whether the compensation he would get from trading Kiwi is more valuable than having Kiwi for one more season.

Bears traded for BM, but he's still got a couple of years left on his contract. They've got him for a couple of years, that's why they were willing to give up so much. They traded two potential long term players (the two 3rd rounders) for one long term starter.

Since they could lose him at the end of the season, they would not give up as much in assets for Kiwi. And besides, you also have to remember that when you lose guys like Kiwi you get comp picks anyway, and those have to figure into the equation as well.

Yup, what you say makes sense, but there's always exceptions. For example Brandon Marshall got initially traded for two 2nd and got paid. Now, he got traded for only two 3rds. That said, because kiwi has shown he is healthy enough to play, I think his value on the open market is greater now than it was just a year ago when he was a free agent

Marvelousmik
03-21-2012, 01:59 PM
Yes, oh wise and mighty one!!

It is YOU who determines what any discussion is "really about", not whoever is engaged in the conversation.

It is YOU who determines what is a valid answer and what is not.

It is YOU who determines what is defined and if it is a satisfactory definition.

It is YOU who knows what someone else said, not the person who said it.

It is YOU who knows what he is talking about, not anyone who disagrees with him.

It is YOU who is arrogant enough to think that anyone, let alone me, actually gives a flying **** if you "even reply" or not.

And it is YOU who insists this discussion "is about two things".

How I could possibly forget THAT, is beyond me.

Are you finding it too difficult to think about more than two things in any given discussion? .

The title of the thread says I think we should consider trading Kiwi.

I then stated we wont get much for him , and that if marshall is worth 2 3rds then kiwi looks like a 5th rounder at best.

You then came in and said kiwi produced more during his career than marshall did, and that kiwi is worth more ont he market than marshall (2nd rounder).

This is what started everything. All the other things inside this discussion are just points you and i are using in order to help support our argument, which are those 2 points that we disagree on.

The claim about us valuing kiwi more is an example of you trying to support your argument. . That being said i brought up stats to support my claim. I also brought up what marshall brings to his team besides stats.

<font color="#0000FF">

The buttom line is, you said kiwi is worth more on the market than brandon marshall and that kiwi has produced more during his career than brandon marshal</font>l.

If you feel that this thread is going on for too long, just say

"yes kiwi is worth more than brandon marshall on the market right now, and yes brandon marshall has not produced more during his career than kiwi".

If you are willing to still stick with that and keep your word, i will leave this discussion alone. DO NOT DODGE THIS QUESTION.

<font color="#0000FF">Are you willing to stick with the fact you said kiwi right now is worth more on the market than brandon marshall, and that kiwi has produced more during his career than BM?</font>

gmen46
03-21-2012, 05:49 PM
Yes, oh wise and mighty one!!

It is YOU who determines what any discussion is "really about", not whoever is engaged in the conversation.

It is YOU who determines what is a valid answer and what is not.

It is YOU who determines what is defined and if it is a satisfactory definition.

It is YOU who knows what someone else said, not the person who said it.

It is YOU who knows what he is talking about, not anyone who disagrees with him.

It is YOU who is arrogant enough to think that anyone, let alone me, actually gives a flying **** if you "even reply" or not.

And it is YOU who insists this discussion "is about two things".

How I could possibly forget THAT, is beyond me.

Are you finding it too difficult to think about more than two things in any given discussion? .

The title of the thread says I think we should consider trading Kiwi.

I then stated we wont get much for him , and that if marshall is worth 2 3rds then kiwi looks like a 5th rounder at best.

You then came in and said kiwi produced more during his career than marshall did, and that kiwi is worth more ont he market than marshall (2nd rounder).

This is what started everything. All the other things inside this discussion* are just points you and i are using in order to help support our argument, which are those 2 points that we disagree on.

The claim about us valuing kiwi more is an example of you trying to support your argument. . That being said i brought up stats to support my claim. I also brought up what marshall brings to his team besides stats.

<font color="#0000FF">

The buttom line is, you said kiwi is worth more on the market than brandon marshall and that kiwi has produced more during his career than brandon marshal</font>l.

If you feel that this thread is going on for too long, just say

"yes kiwi is worth more than brandon marshall on the market right now, and yes brandon marshall has not produced more during his career than kiwi".*

If you are willing to still stick with that and keep your word, i will leave this discussion alone.* DO NOT DODGE THIS QUESTION.

<font color="#0000FF">Are you willing to stick with the fact you said kiwi right now is worth more on the market than brandon marshall, and that kiwi has produced more during his career than BM?</font>




For the 4th or 5th time in this thread, let me try to point out the difference between what I ACTUALLY said and what YOU SAY I said.

What I actually said was that in general DE makes more than WR.

This was the starting point for all my assumptions in this debate.

What I did NOT specifically say--because I assumed making a generalized statement implied the word "average"--was that the AVERAGE salary for DE is more than the AVERAGE salary for WR. My fault for not using the specific word "average".

Obviously, there are a handful of instances (out of 53 roster spots) of STAR players on nearly every NFL team who receive massive exceptions to average NFL salaries because of their exceptional play. But they are,,,,,,exceptions.

Those are the only ones we all read about, of course. We seldom if ever read about the salaries of 75-80% of any given team.

(This fact is responsible for most fans assuming "all" NFL players are "millionaires or multi-millionairs", when in fact most are not; none are poor, but that's not the same as all being a millionaire)

So, the average salary premise is the baseline of my approach to the Kiwi / Marshall value-to-the-team debate.

As validation of my baseline assumption--that IN GENERAL, DE is worth more to a team than WR-- I looked up a couple articles reporting NFL salaries per position. I found 2 different articles by 2 different writers, who accessed the same NFL source of these salaries. (I did not access the NFL directly, but two different writers did, so I give some credence to their reports).

These reports verify, in general, what I've been hearing the last few years regarding average salaries by position.

They are AVERAGE salaries--meaning they include min salaries, vet min salaries, and superstar salaries for the 2010 season -- scattered over 1696 active players.

Rank - Position - Yearly Wages

1. Quarterback 1,970,982

2. Defensiv End 1,583,784

3. Offensive Line 1,267,402

4. Defensive Tackle 1,223,925

5. Cornerback 1,193,666

6. Linebacker 1,175,788

7. Wide Receiveer 1,054,437

8. Running Back 957,360

9. Safety 947,847

10. Punter / Kicker 868,005

11. Tight End 863,414

http://turtledog.hubpages.com/hub/NFL-Salaries-No-Two-Football-Positions-Rank-Equal

As you can see, the AVERAGE DE salary is 50% more than the AVERAGE WR salary. Again, that was my baseline assumption for my arguments.

Next, what I ACTUALLY said, as opposed to your claim, is that "it can be ARGUED that Kiwi produced more for our team than Marshall did for his 2 teams". Evidently, you do not see the difference between qualifying a statement with a phrase such as "it can be argued", and the word "is".

Well. I did argue my position. Multiple times.

You don't agree with my argument, nor, apparently, with my point of view that shapes my argument. That's fair enough.

But don't keep repeating what I did NOT say as the basis of your rebuttal.

Finally, I did not ever say the words "Kiwi right now is worth more on the market than Brandon Marshall".

I DID say: "Kiwi COULD get a 2nd rd pick if he were traded today (although he won't be traded)".

That actually implies I suggest that Kiwi could get an EQUIVALENT value on the market in draft picks, NOT MORE, since the draft value charts apparently equate one 2nd rd to two 3rd rd picks.

As several public figures have been quoted over the past 60 years, with slight variations--"everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts"

So, yes, I do stand by what I ACTUALLY said--not what YOU claim I said.

Marvelousmik
03-21-2012, 07:19 PM
1. If you said it can be argued that Kiwi has produced more during his
career, and you stand by that, and you have been arguing that point, then, you believe kiwi has produced more during his career than BM.. Either that or you are just here to troll.

Lol don't try and deny it. Even if its a stupid statement that is not true, you said it, and you stood by it. Man up.




2. In your argument you spoke about kiwi having more value than BM, and
that DE's are worth more than WR's. Then you chose a pick higher, which
is a 2nd rounder. If you felt they were worth the same on the market, then why would you say it can be argued kiwi has produced more, and talk about the value of a DE compared to a WR favoring the DE? Why choose a 2nd rounder as his worth? Why not just keep it as two 3rd rounders, or say hes worth the same?

If A DE is worth more than a WR, has more value to his team than that WR, and it can be argured he produced more during his career than that reciever, then why would they be of equal value on the market? LMAO. You're only bringing this up now because lawl pointed it out earlier in the thread.
Nice try.

Osi is a DE and has produced more in his career than kiwi. He also came off of a huge season where he not only put up big numbers (11.5 sacks 10 Force fumbles), he also helped close out games for us.
That being said, on the market he wasn't worth 1st round value to any of the other 31 teams in the league. This means his highest value to teams had to of been 2nd round value.

How would kiwi's value now be worth the same as osi's last year? [:D]
I can't help but smile every time i think about, or reread what you said.

Even so, the fact still remains.

You just admit again
that you feel kiwi has produced more during his career, and that he would be worth the "same" as BM on the market. And i quote the word same because you are trying to change it up, and even so you still sound completely stupid.

There is no need for us to debate further.

gmen46
03-21-2012, 08:01 PM
1. If you said it can be argued that Kiwi has produced more during his
career, and you stand by that, and you have been arguing that point, then, you believe kiwi has produced more during his career than BM.. Either that or you are just here to troll.

Lol don't try and deny it. Even if its a stupid statement that is not true, you said it, and you stood by it. Man up.




2. In your argument you spoke about kiwi having more value than BM, and
that DE's are worth more than WR's. Then you chose a pick higher, which
is a 2nd rounder. If you felt they were worth the same on the market, then why would you say it can be argued kiwi has produced more, and talk about the value of a DE compared to a WR favoring the DE? Why choose a 2nd rounder as his worth? Why not just keep it as two 3rd rounders, or say hes worth the same?

If A DE is worth more than a WR, has more value to his team than that WR, and it can be argured he produced more during his career than that reciever, then why would they be of equal value on the market? LMAO. You're only bringing this up now because lawl pointed it out earlier in the thread.
Nice try.

Osi is a DE and has produced more in his career than kiwi. He also came off of a huge season where he not only put up big numbers (11.5 sacks 10 Force fumbles), he also helped close out games for us.
That being said, on the market he wasn't worth 1st round value to any of the other 31 teams in the league. This means his highest value to teams had to of been 2nd round value.

How would kiwi's value be wroth the same as osi's last year? [:D]
I can't help but smile every time i think about, or reread what you said.

Even so, the fact still remains.

.You just admit again
that you feel kiwi has produced more during his career, and that he would be worth the "same" as BM on the market. And i quote the word same because you are trying to change it up, and even so you still sound completely stupid.

There is no need for us to debate further.


You're bouncing around like a pinball here.

Yet I'M the one sounding completely stupid.

I've made a completely rational argument.

I have said that I stand by what I have actually said--yet you still demand I "man up". (To what,, exactly?)

I have also allowed that you don't agree with my argument, that we are each approaching it from two entirely points of view. Which means that there will be no resolution between us regarding this subject.

We have, at last, reached the "Whatever, dude". stage.

Marvelousmik
03-21-2012, 11:08 PM
We have, at last, reached the "Whatever, dude". stage.

Now thats something we can both agree on. Nonetheless, check your PM.

gmen46
03-24-2012, 04:42 PM
We have, at last, reached the "Whatever, dude". stage.

Now thats something we can both agree on. Nonetheless, check your PM.


I thought this recent article in Miami's Sun Sentinal, about Dolphins owner Ross and a conversation he was reported to have with one of many upset season ticket holders (name of Mr Lawrence) was interesting and appropriate to this debate.

Marshall was to be GONE, Bears trade or no Bears trade.

" Lawrence said he asked about the decision to trade leading wide receiver Marshall to Chicago for two third-round draft picks. Twice, Lawrence said, Ross would not say if the Dolphins were rebuilding. He told Lawrence moving Marshall was not about money, but more about protecting team morale.

"[Ross] said they had been shopping [Marhsall] for a couple weeks," Lawrence said. "Nobody would return their phone calls about getting him. If Chicago didn't take [Marshall] they would have ended up cutting him very shortly after that, and got nothing."