Good analysis discussing why the QB "competition" was a farce...disgusting but probably true [Archive]

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 06:40 PM

Saw this at BroncoMania

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=192962

Contracts Dictated which QB Started
Lost in all of our fan hoopla about the idea of these QBs competing to start was the inevitable fact that Tebow was not going to start. No chance, was never going to happen. And here's the factual contract data as to why:

Written into Tebow's contract is this qualifier "Tebow's contract DOUBLES from 11.25 million to 22.50 million if he plays 55% of the time in TWO of his first three seasons".

Meanwhile, Orton's contract this season? 9 Million, 6 million guaranteed. So, since no team would trade for Orton at franchise player money, and since Orton refused to renegotiate his contract, the only remaining option was to cut him and pay the 6 million. We weren't going to bench him and pay 9 million.

So, this was the dilemma, pay Orton millions and millions to not play AND double Tebow's contract, or keep Tebow on the bench and not hitting escalators while getting something for the 6 million you owe Orton no matter what.

And you have to wonder about Tebow's future here due to his contract. A contract signed before the rookie wage scale. If Tebow plays 70% of the snaps in 2013, his contract doubles to 22.5 million and if the team makes multiple playoffs under Tebow and he achieves leaguewide awards his contract triples to 33 million.

Meanwhile, the #1 overall selection this year, Cam Newton's contract? 4 Years, 22 million. Andrew Luck is looking at the same deal. And there are 3-4 other QBs likely to go in the Top 20 in the next draft for much cheaper deals in the strongest QB draft in quite some time.

And what about Brady Quinn you might ask? Well, if he plays 70% of our snaps, his contract goes from 700,000 to 6.6 million due to a 5.9 million escalator bonus.

Do you think this was a fair QB competition? Hell no. Orton was never not going to start. Not with Bowlen in a financial crises and unable to even make waiver claims because of financial concerns. Let alone not even being competitive on the open free agent market. We weren't going to pay Orton millions not to play.

We have this big Quinn versus Tebow versus Orton debate, and there probably was a true battle for the #2 spot (which we laughingly refused to name), but there was never a competition for the #1 spot. Finances dictated that. Period.

So if you wonder why Tebow or Quinn didn't play with the starters, or Orton with the 2nd team, this is why. The team knew what direction it was going months and months ago despite telling us it was a competition. Lying has been standard for the front office this offseason despite declarations of openness. Sure they tried to trade Orton's albatross of a contract, but no team was taking that unless Kyle re-negotiated and he made it clear he would not absent a pricy long term deal. Nobody in the NFL wants to give him that. And as for all the chatter about "Tebow being terrible", almost guaranteed it was planted by the front office to try and justify to fans why he wasn't given a chance to start.

Too bad for them the contract information was made public. A little research sure sheds some light on an awful lot of questions and confusing bait and switch comments by EFX.

claymore

09-05-2011, 06:48 PM

He would still be cheeper than Orton. 22 million over the course of 4 years? Thats a bargain for a starting QB.

The real reason he isnt starting is because he isnt nearly as good as Orton. :harf:

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 06:58 PM

He would still be cheeper than Orton. 22 million over the course of 4 years? Thats a bargain for a starting QB.

The real reason he isnt starting is because he isnt nearly as good as Orton. :harf:

No. Its interesting how most of the negativity about Tebow came out of practice and leaks from the organization to the media. It's also interesting how Tebow never really played with the first string offense, nor did Orton play with the scrubs Tebow was playing with. Even in spite of that, Tebow had better numbers than Orton in the preseason...oh but why don't you tell everyone more about practice.

Face it dude. Bowlens broke and these are the lengths they're going to to save money. Don't be gullible.

claymore

09-05-2011, 07:01 PM

No. Its interesting how most of the negativity about Tebow came out of practice and leaks from the organization to the media. It's also interesting how Tebow never really played with the first string offense, nor did Orton play with the scrubs Tebow was playing with. Even in spite of that, Tebow had better numbers than Orton in the preseason...oh but why don't you tell everyone more about practice.

Face it dude. Bowlens broke and these are the lengths they're going to to save money. Don't be gullible.

If Tebow was better than Orton, Tebow would be starting. If Tebow was the Starter, Orton would have restructured his contract to make a trade happen.

No team in the NFL would ever, ever keep the better QB on the bench over a few million dollars. Dawkins restructuring of his contract would have paid Tebows money this year. Its only like 4 million more.

Face it dude. Orton is the better QB by a very, very large margin.

09-05-2011, 07:11 PM

No. Its interesting how most of the negativity about Tebow came out of practice and leaks from the organization to the media. It's also interesting how Tebow never really played with the first string offense, nor did Orton play with the scrubs Tebow was playing with. Even in spite of that, Tebow had better numbers than Orton in the preseason...oh but why don't you tell everyone more about practice.

Face it dude. Bowlens broke and these are the lengths they're going to to save money. Don't be gullible.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the owner of one of the most profitable football franchises in NFL history in terms of ticket sales (which is where the majority of team revenue comes from) is broke. That is all bullshit hearsay until someone can provide concrete truth to these claims.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:16 PM

I find it extremely hard to believe that the owner of one of the most profitable football franchises in NFL history in terms of ticket sales (which is where the majority of team revenue comes from) is broke. That is all bullshit hearsay until someone can provide concrete truth to these claims.

This has been talked about for a long time and after numerous instances that continue to point to this, it's amazing how many insist on taking this pollyannish view of the world or stick their heads in the sand.

G_Money

09-05-2011, 07:21 PM

Denver Native (Carol)

09-05-2011, 07:23 PM

NO ONE will ever convince me that the Denver Broncos would start a quarterback, fully KNOWING that the best quarterback is on the bench - utterly ridiculous.

09-05-2011, 07:25 PM

This has been talked about for a long time and after numerous instances that continue to point to this, it's amazing how many insist on taking this pollyannish view of the world or stick their heads in the sand.

My head isn't in the sand and I fail to see how my opinion on Pat Bowlen's financial status has to do with having a Pollyanna view of the world. Get real.

Things can point to things all they want, but without factual information I really don't see how any of the finger pointing and "instances" can prove anything. To suggest the Broncos wouldn't start Tebow because of financials is ******* dumb. Tebow is a shitty quarterback at this stage in his development. I'm pretty sure if the front office thought Tebow would win more games than Orton, Tebow would be the starter on MNF against the Raiders. Conspiracy theorists like you and like the original poster of that article are what drives the rest of the fan base to ban their heads against the wall (so to speak).

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:30 PM

My head isn't in the sand and I fail to see how my opinion on Pat Bowlen's financial status has to do with having a Pollyanna view of the world. Get real.

Things can point to things all they want, but without factual information I really don't see how any of the finger pointing and "instances" can prove anything. To suggest the Broncos wouldn't start Tebow because of financials is ******* dumb. Tebow is a shitty quarterback at this stage in his development. I'm pretty sure if the front office thought Tebow would win more games than Orton, Tebow would be the starter on MNF against the Raiders. Conspiracy theorists like you and like the original poster of that article are what drives the rest of the fan base to ban their heads against the wall (so to speak).

What factual evidence do you have to the contrary? Like I said, there have been numerous instances that point to Bowlen having money problems over the past few years.

In spite of your denial, it seems that you very much are taking a head in the sand or pollyanna-ish view.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:33 PM

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:34 PM

NO ONE will ever convince me that the Denver Broncos would start a quarterback, fully KNOWING that the best quarterback is on the bench - utterly ridiculous.

If someone baked you a cake, would you better see this?

09-05-2011, 07:34 PM

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:36 PM

So because I have no factual evidence to dispute your lack of factual evidence, I'm wrong? Alright, sport.

Thats kind of what you're saying to me. If it doesn't make sense when I turn it around on you, you should really be questioning the stupidity of you making this an issue in the first place.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-05-2011, 07:47 PM

If someone baked you a cake, would you better see this?

Give me a break - and I would like to see the articles where it states that Bowlen is in financial trouble - the Broncos have sold out each game for how many years - second longest streak only to Washington. All owners get the same amount as far as profit sharing - so, if Bowlen is in trouble - how are the teams who do not have sellouts each week making it???????

AND

The World's Billionaires
#937 Patrick Bowlen & family
03.10.10, 06:00 PM EST

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Patrick-Bowlen-family_ACGS.html

Tned

09-05-2011, 07:48 PM

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 07:49 PM

If Tebow didn't suck, conspiracies like this might have some legitimacy. But since he's terrible, it's just not plausible.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:49 PM

Give me a break - and I would like to see the articles where it states that Bowlen is in financial trouble - the Broncos have sold out each game for how many years - second longest streak only to Washington. All owners get the same amount as far as profit sharing - so, if Bowlen is in trouble - how are the teams who do not have sellouts each week making it???????

AND

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Patrick-Bowlen-family_ACGS.html

The Broncos were recently valued at around a billion dollars. That doesnt mean Pat isn't having cash flow problems.

09-05-2011, 07:53 PM

Thats kind of what you're saying to me. If it doesn't make sense when I turn it around on you, you should really be questioning the stupidity of you making this an issue in the first place.

I'm not the one making the issue about it. I disagree with your point of view because of the lack of anything substantive and you're the one telling me that I've got my head up my ass. Dude...get a friggin clue.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:53 PM

How about making the points without focusing on the poster in this way. His views, and your opinion of them are not the thread subject.

Im just doing what he did. If you don't want it turned around on you, you shouldnt raise the issue in the first place. You're just defending them because you pulled the same thing on me earlier today with this proof thing. When I turned it around on you, you complained about how it was some internet trick, when the truth is, you were doing the same thing by making proof an issue in the first place. There is no required presumption where Bowlen's financial wellbeing is concerned. You're not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Thats why is stupid to ask for proof to the contrary from the beginning like SeeingRed did (and you similarly did before).

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:55 PM

I'm not the one making the issue about it. I disagree with your point of view because of the lack of anything substantive and you're the one telling me that I've got my head up my ass. Dude...get a friggin clue.

Im talking about making an issue out of asking for proof. Try to follow along.

09-05-2011, 07:56 PM

Im just doing what he did. If you don't want it turned around on you, you shouldnt raise the issue in the first place. You're just defending them because you pulled the same thing on me earlier today with this proof thing. When I turned it around on you, you complained about how it was some internet trick, when the truth is, you were doing the same thing by making proof an issue in the first place. There is no required presumption where Bowlen's financial wellbeing is concerned. You're not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Thats why is stupid to ask for proof to the contrary from the beginning like SeeingRed did (and you similarly did before).

Why is it stupid? Ever heard the phrase "trust but verify"? If you heard a rumor tomorrow that President Obama had a heart attack, wouldn't you turn on the news or read the internet to verify the rumor you heard? Or would you blindly believe it because someone told you and it might be plausible? Your logic is a tad skewed, partner.

chazoe60

09-05-2011, 07:57 PM

There's no conspiracy keeping Tebow from playing, he's just not good enough from the pocket to beat out the safe pick in Orton. The one caviate I have is that ai would have loved to see Tebow with the first teamers at least once. The OL he was stuck behind was absolutely atrocious. Orton probably wouldn't have survived behind that line let alone looked like an NFL starter.

09-05-2011, 07:57 PM

Im talking about making an issue out of asking for proof. Try to follow along.

Sorry. I must not be as smart as you think you are. I do apologize, sir.

HORSEPOWER 56

09-05-2011, 07:57 PM

NO ONE will ever convince me that the Denver Broncos would start a quarterback, fully KNOWING that the best quarterback is on the bench - utterly ridiculous.

Oh come on, Carol. Every team does it from time to time. For crying out loud, if you believe all the Plummer folks, that's EXACTLY what Shanahan did the year he benched Plummer for Cutler. Plummer was paid more and supposedly was the "better QB", but Shanny made the decision to put in Cutler.

There's no way that teams don't feel pressure to immediately start high-paid or highly drafted QBs over lower paid ones. Happens every year.

There was absolutely no chance that Von Miller wouldn't start this season. At least not initially, he makes more money than every LB on the roster except DJ and there's no way they aren't going to play him if they're paying him. Sure if halfway through the season he stinks, then maybe the team will play someone else, but he'd have to suck really badly. They are just not going to leave that kind of money on the bench. The only time you ever see that is if the player becomes belligerent toward the management like Haynesworth or T.O.

Tned

09-05-2011, 07:58 PM

Im just doing what he did. If you don't want it turned around on you, you shouldnt raise the issue in the first place. You're just defending them because you pulled the same thing on me earlier today with this proof thing.

Agent, I am not defending him, i'm telling you to stop insulting posters and making them the topic of the thread.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 07:59 PM

Why is it stupid? Ever heard the phrase "trust but verify"? If you heard a rumor tomorrow that President Obama had a heart attack, wouldn't you turn on the news or read the internet to verify the rumor you heard? Or would you blindly believe it because someone told you and it might be plausible? Your logic is a tad skewed, partner.

Thats not really the same thing but now I see you've resorted to just throwing things against the wall hoping they stick. I have no patience to be witness to this sad exercise. It was nice talking with you.

bcbronc

09-05-2011, 07:59 PM

It was pretty great of Orton and Tebow to do Bowlen a solid like they did and "pretend" Orton is currently the much better QB the way they did. Really speaks to the character of bothe QBs!

09-05-2011, 08:01 PM

Thats not really the same thing but now I see you've resorted to just throwing things against the wall hoping they stick. I have no patience to be witness to this sad exercise. It was nice talking with you.

See ya.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:02 PM

Sorry. I must not be as smart as you think you are. I do apologize, sir.

No. Making false declarations doesnt make it so.

09-05-2011, 08:03 PM

No. Making false declarations doesnt make it so.

But I can put the apostrophe between "doesn" and "t". I win.

G_Money

09-05-2011, 08:04 PM

Whats the difference? If all of his assets become concentrated in the Broncos, it would makes sense that he would become cheap(er).

Um...that was me providing a theory that backs up your claim of Bowlen's cash-flow issues. The issue is not with the Broncos, who sell out all the time, but in non-football areas.

As you say, try to keep up.

And can we get BACK to the football aspects of this conversation? TIA.

~G

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:05 PM

But I can put the apostrophe between "doesn" and "t". I win.

I bet that's not all you can do.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:14 PM

If Bowlen was broke he wouldnt have paid Champ, Doom, and agreed to pay Orton :harf: 9 million dollars.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:14 PM

If Bowlen was broke he wouldnt have paid Champ, Doom, and agreed to pay Orton :harf: 9 million dollars.

But the money situation has nothing to do with Tebow's position on the depth chart.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:15 PM

If Bowlen was broke he wouldnt have paid Champ, Doom, and agreed to pay Orton :harf: 9 million dollars.

Sorry, I don't have the patience to go over this.

HORSEPOWER 56

09-05-2011, 08:17 PM

Um...that was me providing a theory that backs up your claim of Bowlen's cash-flow issues. The issue is not with the Broncos, who sell out all the time, but in non-football areas.

As you say, try to keep up.

And can we get BACK to the football aspects of this conversation? TIA.

~G

I think that may be part of the problem. Bowlen isn't the same type of owner as guys like Kraft and Blank who would be successful billionaires even if they didn't own a successful NFL franchise. There have been many rumors that he's "cash poor". If the Broncos are his sole money making enterprise at this point, it's possible that he has leveraged the equity and profits from the Broncos against his other losses.

The Broncos appear to be a profitable franchise, but that doesn't mean Bowlen is as a whole. I've always liked Bowlen, but if Kroenke offered to buy the Broncos, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. It will be very telling once the cap floor takes effect whether or not we become one of the teams who must fight to stay above it.

Rumors are Ralph Wilson, the Bills owner, has all but given up even trying to spend money to make his team competitive. He's just hanging on, biding his time, basically waiting to die and then the team will be sold and moved to a different city. Just because the NFL has profit sharing, doesn't mean all owners are profitable...

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:18 PM

Sorry, I don't have the patience to go over this.

Good, because its a retarded argument. Grown folks grasping at straws as to why Tebow isnt starting. THe answer is simple,. He isnt as good as Orton.

Occams Razor dude.

Northman

09-05-2011, 08:19 PM

Dont know how accurate the article is but its sad some people want to immediately write it off. With that said, the one thing that is VERY true regarding the lack of real competition is that neither Quinn nor Tebow played very much with the 1st stringers. Not sure how much money played a part but experience was the biggest reason why Orton is starting. Im not sold on the idea that he was "better" than Tebow because of one day of practice. lol

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:21 PM

Good, because its a retarded argument. Grown folks grasping at straws as to why Tebow isnt starting. THe answer is simple,. He isnt as good as Orton.

Occams Razor dude.

Thats not what's simple. But whatever. Carry on, pollyanna.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:21 PM

Ravage!!!

09-05-2011, 08:22 PM

Yeah. Its a conspiracy to keep Tebow on the sidelines, because that makes sense. After all, winning games with Tebow wouldn't provide ANY kind of "cashflow" that is so thoroughly needed. No no. It makes SOOO much more sense to sit Tebow based on the fact that he's... the better QB? :confused: After all, benched QBs CONTINUE to sell more merchandise than those playing.

Whats the gain? Orton goes UFA next season, Tebow stays, yet some want to feel because he didn't start with the first team in a PRE-SEASON game there is a conspiracy to keep him down?? :lol:

I say it shows ignorance to believe that preseason games mean ANYTHING to the coaches when it comes to the starters. There might be depth players that MIGHT break a "tie breaker" due to something in pre-season because they don't get much practice time in front of the HC during the real practices. But the reality.. the REALITY... is that coaches don't rely on pre-season crap games to determine who the better player is.

Example. It might take you 3-4 minutes to drive down the field against lame, pre season, vanilla defenses that are filled with fill-ins... to get 2, maybe three shots in a redzone offense. In practice, you can go against your first team defense (that are using REAL defensive coverages as they are practicing as well) and get 20 reps of red-zone offense within the same period. Don't believe for a MOMENT that the coaches don't know who the better player is from those 20 reps over the LAME pre-season crap the face.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but when you keep broadcasting it, it needs to be corrected.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:22 PM

Thats not what's simple. But whatever. Carry on, pollyanna.

Ok Ted Kaczynski.

bcbronc

09-05-2011, 08:23 PM

Thats kind of what you're saying to me. If it doesn't make sense when I turn it around on you, you should really be questioning the stupidity of you making this an issue in the first place.

The thng you're missing with your silliness is that YOU made the claim, and thus the onus falls on you to provide support for your claim. Its sort of an Internet message board 101 kind of thing.

It would be like me claiming Orton has the strongest arm in the league, so strong he once threw a ball into orbit. Prove he didn't, or else I'm right. Kinda dumb, right?

Ravage!!!

09-05-2011, 08:24 PM

Lancane

09-05-2011, 08:24 PM

I thought the problem was that BOWLEN had a cash-flow problem, not that the Broncos do.

Bowlen's real estate holdings all crashed and burned when the market did, didn't they? So the money he had there is missing and he's using the Broncos to cover the losses.

I thought that's how it was, anyway, much like the Maloofs can't afford the Kings since the economy crashed and messed up their Vegas hotel business.

~G

I'm not going to say that he is or is not refusing to start the better quarterback because of financial reasons. But it has been reported by several media outlets that we've become for a better term 'cheap franchise' when it comes to spending or a thrift team I guess. The local media had a story run that the Broncos had barely any cap room, then the league released the cap numbers and we were nearly twenty-two million under the cap, Ted Sundquist who is a reliable source tweeted that we are closer to twenty-four million under the cap!

So let's say that Bowlen loses big in wake of the economical seizure and that the Broncos are his one true source of fiscal stability, other owners have several interests that continue to garner some income, we know that single ownership has become relatively a thing of the past as well and partly because of the expenses to run a professional sports team. Where people are making the mistake is believing Bowlen is a single owner, in fact he only owns if I remember correctly just little over 65% of the entire stock, the rest is owned by private investors but investors no less who see revenue return since Bowlen owns the controlling stock. With the value change being -3 or -4%, the Broncos bring in about 250 million a year net total, with a debt value of about 15% so close to 37 million, they're paying about 22 million annually in operations and close to 142 million in player expenses (these are based on last years statistics) if we gander that we're 20 million under the cap, that leaves about 49 million, if he spent 99% of the cap then he'd have an intake of closer to 29 million which doesn't include his debt ceiling from other ventures.

Forbes wrote a piece about this last year -

The skinny
Rumors persist that Broncos owner Pat Bowlen is looking for investors or may even consider selling the team. One scenario had Stanley Kroenke, who owns Colorado's NBA (Nuggets) and NHL (Avalanche) franchises selling his 40% stake in the St. Louis Rams and investing in the Broncos, but it looks like Kroenke has his sites on upping his Rams stake. Former QB John Elway, who sold his car dealership for a reported $80 million, is also rumored to be a possible investor in the team even though the Broncos have made the postseason only once this decade. Although the team has among the most loyal fans in the NFL, and have sold out general seating at Invesco Field since it opened in 2001, Bowlen has struggled to sell out the luxury suite and club seat inventory and carries $150 million of stadium debt.

Now we know Bowlen is hurting fiscally, we've also heard the Kaiser has blocked his sale of partial stock to Elway which was ruled on last year or the year before, so Bowlen has one of two options...finding investors deviating more income and a higher debt ceiling for the franchise or simply selling the team, which he may be forced to do once the league requires all teams to spend nearly all their cap money. And I don't think Elway is an option because of the clauses in the contract which states that Kaiser has first right to purchase the team and any set offer given to another buyer, the team itself is worth a little over 1 billion, unless Bowlen pays off all investor debt, then he'd only see close to 600 million at the time of sale, and Elway's net worth isn't even in that ballpark. Which means that he'd have to sale controlling stock at less then net value, which again Kaiser receives first option.

No matter which way you look at it, it's a mess. But Bowlen is hurting fiscally, so people need to come to understand that fact.

As to the other, I could see how the team could feel that Orton was a better option from the start and could waiver giving Tebow a full blown try because should he prove to be better then his salary sky rockets from his current salary which is rather reasonable. Do I believe that it's true...no, but it's not hard to see where someone could come up with that hypothesis.

Tned

09-05-2011, 08:26 PM

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:27 PM

The thng you're missing with your silliness is that YOU made the claim, and thus the onus falls on you to provide support for your claim. Its sort of an Internet message board 101 kind of thing.
It would be like me claiming Orton has the strongest arm in the league, so strong he once threw a ball into orbit. Prove he didn't, or else I'm right. Kinda dumb, right?

No. Just because people are walking around with other ideas in their head, it doesn't suddenly obligate me. The reason for that is that there is no required acceptance that Pat Bowlen is in good financial shape. Someone's observations that Bowlen is struggling doesnt create a greater obligation to prove it than what those who disagree have. If you want to talk about silly, that's silly.

Locnar

09-05-2011, 08:28 PM

For a guy who can barely take snaps under center, I would be nervous about doubling his salary too.

09-05-2011, 08:30 PM

This thread is a good "Black Hole" candidate. Thanks AoO.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:31 PM

No. Just because people are walking around with other ideas in their head, it doesn't suddenly obligate me. The reason for that is that there is no required acceptance that Pat Bowlen is in good financial shape. Someone's observations that Bowlen is struggling doesnt create a greater obligation to prove it than what those who disagree have. If you want to talk about silly, that's silly.

Bottom line, Bowlen isnt going to have this supposed Franchise saving Quarterback riding pine because of 4 million dollars.

4 million dollars is chump change even to a broke ass owner. Especially if it means selling out the luxury boxes... Which a starting Tebow would do.

TaylorK47

09-05-2011, 08:31 PM

I think agent of Orange is right

Lancane

09-05-2011, 08:33 PM

Bottom line, Bowlen isnt going to have this supposed Franchise saving Quarterback riding pine because of 4 million dollars.

4 million dollars is chump change even to a broke ass owner. Especially if it means selling out the luxury boxes... Which a starting Tebow would do.

Although the team has among the most loyal fans in the NFL, and have sold out general seating at Invesco Field since it opened in 2001, Bowlen has struggled to sell out the luxury suite and club seat inventory and carries $150 million of stadium debt.

I think it would take a lot more then starting Tebow at this point Clay!

Ravage!!!

09-05-2011, 08:34 PM

I think it would take a lot more then starting Tebow at this point Clay!

Just more proof that sitting Tebow, when starting him would seem to raise the interest of selling out boxes (especially from the florida allum)... doesn't make sense. It's just theory based on rumor.

Northman

09-05-2011, 08:35 PM

its not an article, its a post written by some internet message boarder that has a theory based on a hunch because Tebow isn't starting.

Still an interesting theory.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:36 PM

Ravage!!!

09-05-2011, 08:38 PM

Still an interesting theory.

I guess. I personally don't find it interesting because I don't think it holds much clout. It doesn't make any sense to me. It just feels like someone else looking for yet another reason as to why the team would not start Tebow, when the obvious answer is what it is.....he's not good enough right now.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:38 PM

I think it would take a lot more then starting Tebow at this point Clay!

I think you are underestimating the Tebow nation!

Forbes says that the Broncos have a Operating Income of 49 million a year after all the bills are paid.

He had the 4 million to pay Tebow. Especially if he knew he would make it up in Luxury box sales. Which, Im sure he would have.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-05-2011, 08:40 PM

If the attached list is accurate, the Broncos 2011 payroll is $125 million. Only 4 teams have a higher payroll - Dallas, Green Bay, NY Giants and NY Jets

http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Sports/nfl-salaries.php

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:41 PM

Its not 4 million dollars.

For one year its like 4 million. 22 million (double his original contract) over a 5 year contract is... 4.4 million a year. He was due to make like 1.5 this year. And additional 4 million is a rough estimate, but its chicken scratch in the grand scheme of things.

dogfish

09-05-2011, 08:41 PM

Good, because its a retarded argument. Grown folks grasping at straws as to why Tebow isnt starting. THe answer is simple,. He isnt as good as Orton.

Occams Razor dude.

Ok Ted Kaczynski.

occam's razor, and now the unabomber? man, clay's on fire tonight. . . .

maybe we should post MUG's stuff over here more often. . . .

Northman

09-05-2011, 08:43 PM

I guess. I personally don't find it interesting because I don't think it holds much clout. It doesn't make any sense to me. It just feels like someone else looking for yet another reason as to why the team would not start Tebow, when the obvious answer is what it is.....he's not good enough right now.

I think their could be many reasons for why he is not starting. But for every person who has a theory there are those who just don't like him either disclaiming everything under the sun.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:44 PM

For one year its like 4 million. 22 million (double his original contract) over a 5 year contract is... 4.4 million a year. He was due to make like 1.5 this year. And additional 4 million is a rough estimate, but its chicken scratch in the grand scheme of things.

They're on the hook to pay Orton 9 million if they keep him. They'd owe him 6 million if they cut him.

Im not at all shocked that you werent considering this.

claymore

09-05-2011, 08:48 PM

They're on the hook to pay Orton 9 million if they keep him. They'd owe him 6 million if they cut him.

Im not at all shocked that you werent considering this.

So if they cut Orton they could have covered Tebows massive 4 million dollar salary increase. You just answered your own theory.

Orton is better, or else they would have cut him to make way for tebow and his unprecidented 5 mllion dollar a year contract.

Dreadnought

09-05-2011, 08:51 PM

occam's razor, and now the unabomber? man, clay's on fire tonight. . . .

maybe we should post MUG's stuff over here more often. . . .

I taught Clay everything he knows about Occams Razor :coffee:

That said, such a dick move is not unprecedented. Bill Bidwell ordered Boomer Esiason benched some years back to avoid having to pay a performance bonus of @ $500,000. Esiason had signed an incentive heavy contract near the end of his career as a backup and ended up starting - and quite well too. Bidwell was willing to tank games to avoid paying Esiason that comparativelyy small amount (NB, any wonder the Cards are usually uncompetitive?)

Now, Bill Bidwell is also a douchenozzle of near cosmic proportion, something I would never accuse Bowlen of being...but, heavy financial stress can make people do shabby things. I don't think for a moment that there was a "fair" competition, but I doubt this is the reason. My own sense is its Fox's innate conservatism at play here. Orton sucks, but in a more generally familiar way to Fox. He simply doesn't know what to make of Tebow, and he'll only find out when his hand is forced by injury or ineptitude, which are both well within Orton's grasp.

Lancane

09-05-2011, 08:52 PM

Just more proof that sitting Tebow, when starting him would seem to raise the interest of selling out boxes (especially from the florida allum)... doesn't make sense. It's just theory based on rumor.

Tebow is and has been a cash cow since his arrival in the NFL, because of lingering issues with his status net worth on his products have fallen. It's only a guess at this time that starting him would bring more revenue as compared to fielding a winning team, especially one that gets a playoff berth, the revenue from one playoff game is likely more then he'd see from selling out box seats.

As I stated, I don't believe it...but I could see where someone could come up with that idea in the first place.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 08:52 PM

So if they cut Orton they could have covered Tebows massive 4 million dollar salary increase. You just answered your own theory.

Orton is better, or else they would have cut him to make way for tebow and his unprecidented 5 mllion dollar a year contract.

No, theyd be paying 6 million for an empty roster spot. If Bowlen didn't suck so bad the past 3 years at making decisions on coaches, it might not be as big of a deal.

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 08:58 PM

No, theyd be paying 6 million for an empty roster spot. If Bowlen didn't suck so bad the past 3 years at making decisions on coaches, it might not be as big of a deal.

And the $3 million he saved from it could pay 3/4 of the salary they owed Tebow.

He has three coaches on the payroll. If he was so cash-strapped he wouldn't have fired McDaniels, no matter the PR problem it would have created.

He's not broke. This crap is just getting old.

claymore

09-05-2011, 09:00 PM

No, theyd be paying 6 million for an empty roster spot. If Bowlen didn't suck so bad the past 3 years at making decisions on coaches, it might not be as big of a deal.

If they benched Orton for Tebow then they would be paying 9 million for what amounts to be an empty roster spot anyway.

Bottom line is that 4 million isnt that hard to shuffle around.

Tebow IS not riding pine because of money.

EFX/Bowlen are doing the hard right by keeping Tebow on the bench. Much to the chagrin of some fans.

Lancane

09-05-2011, 09:25 PM

And the $3 million he saved from it could pay 3/4 of the salary they owed Tebow.

He has three coaches on the payroll. If he was so cash-strapped he wouldn't have fired McDaniels, no matter the PR problem it would have created.

He's not broke. This crap is just getting old.

So are you stating that you're a reputable and impeccable source and Forbes is just prints rhetorical mumbo-jumbo based on no evidence? Because you're in a round about way declaring that you know for a fact it's not true and that what others have said is utter crap, I'm not slandering you Mo, but there is a fine line which causes one to be a hypocrite themselves.

Let's face it, if not for the fan outcry last year he would have kept McDaniels at least for another season, that's even what Adam Schefter had said. He went on record as stating that McDaniels without a doubt would return as the head coach then turned around a day later and changed his position, stating that they would review the situation after the season. The fan outcry via the media was so bad that he didn't even wait to fire him. It was also reported that Denver no matter their claims about paying whatever to fix the situation had indeed no merit, several outlets reported what we could spend on a head coach and guess what, Fox fits into the fiscal parameter. So I am sure that Bowlen will be relieved when he doesn't have to pay out millions to coaches no longer under contract, but stating he isn't hurting when all signs point to such...well that in itself is just blind fan loyalty.

We all love Bowlen and respect the man...but he's lost a lot of money with the fall of the economy, not realizing just how much is simply us trying to look elsewhere and hope that it doesn't effect the team, when it could seriously hinder it.

;)

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 09:29 PM

So are you stating that you're a reputable and impeccable source and Forbes is just prints rhetorical mumbo-jumbo based on no evidence? Because you're in a round about way declaring that you know for a fact it's not true and that what others have said is utter crap, I'm not slandering you Mo, but there is a fine line which causes one to be a hypocrite themselves.

Let's face it, if not for the fan outcry last year he would have kept McDaniels at least for another season, that's even what Adam Schefter had said. He went on record as stating that McDaniels without a doubt would return as the head coach then turned around a day later and changed his position, stating that they would review the situation after the season. The fan outcry via the media was so bad that he didn't even wait to fire him. It was also reported that Denver no matter their claims about paying whatever to fix the situation had indeed no merit, several outlets reported what we could spend on a head coach and guess what, Fox fits into the fiscal parameter. So I am sure that Bowlen will be relieved when he doesn't have to pay out millions to coaches no longer under contract, but stating he isn't hurting when all signs point to such...well that in itself is just blind fan loyalty.

We all love Bowlen and respect the man...but he's lost a lot of money with the fall of the economy, not realizing just how much is simply us trying to look elsewhere and hope that it doesn't effect the team, when it could seriously hinder it.

;)

The Broncos aren't broke. And I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not blind.

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 09:32 PM

Lancane

09-05-2011, 09:36 PM

The Broncos aren't broke. And I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not blind.

No one said the Broncos are broke, but Bowlen is fiscally restrained and struggling according to reputable sources, and unless you're Joe Ellis, Brian Xanders, John Elway, Rich Slivka, Mac Freeman, John Bowlen, John Fox, Justin Webster or for that matter an investor or board member and can openly dispute such reports then what you are stating is nothing more then your opinion on the matter.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 09:41 PM

Lancane

09-05-2011, 09:44 PM

In addition, it amazes me that people, at length, criticized and slandered McDaniels for "lying" and yet they take statements made to the media as gospel by other people.

It's all a game. McDaniels isn't the only one playing it.

Well, we do criticize him because the little S.O.B, he was a liar...so what, it's done and over and what does he have to do with the current conversation other then Bowlen still owes him financially?

I have heard no one claim anything as gospel, but I sure in the hell would listen to Forbes on financial issues and aspects then that of my fellow posters, just as I am sure you'd listen to Adam Schefter on a rumor over any of us.

I've reiterated my position on this several times, that I don't believe it...but I could see how someone could devise a theory based on it. My argument is simply that Bowlen in whole is hurting financially more then people understand.

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 09:45 PM

No one said the Broncos are broke, but Bowlen is fiscally restrained and struggling according to reputable sources, and unless you're Joe Ellis, Brian Xanders, John Elway, Rich Slivka, Mac Freeman, John Bowlen, John Fox, Justin Webster or for that matter an investor or board member and can openly dispute such reports then what you are stating is nothing more then your opinion on the matter.

Thankfully, Bowlen's personal finances likely don't affect the Broncos operations, and based on recent transactions, they don't.

Most likely, because this is how business works, owners don't invest or play with their own money, especially in a business as liquid as the NFL. Then you bring in the record profits of the entire NFL and the fact that there's revenue sharing, and the fact that he hasn't not sold out a game for four decades, and this crap makes no sense, unless you want to throw out some unintelligent, beligerant conspiracy theory.

Every franchise is MAKING money, not losing it, which means he's adding to investor money, and not toying with his own.

threefolddead

09-05-2011, 09:46 PM

My god. The conspiracy theories about Tebow are getting better. Someone get the popcorn.

Agent of Orange

09-05-2011, 09:56 PM

Thankfully, Bowlen's personal finances likely don't affect the Broncos operations, and based on recent transactions, they don't.

Most likely, because this is how business works, owners don't invest or play with their own money, especially in a business as liquid as the NFL. Then you bring in the record profits of the entire NFL and the fact that there's revenue sharing, and the fact that he hasn't not sold out a game for four decades, and this crap makes no sense, unless you want to throw out some unintelligent, beligerant conspiracy theory.

Every franchise is MAKING money, not losing it, which means he's adding to investor money, and not toying with his own.

No. Let me explain to you a little something about how business works. If you arrive at a point where you have poor cashflow and are unable to pay your debts, creditors start to line up for your assets. Bowlen's ownership partners know this. In addition to that, you have Kaiser with a possible right of first refusal to go along with partners who might also have some provision for buying Bowlens shares. Whatever the makeup of Bowlen's co-owners can affect Bowlen's decision making. Bowlen is either being pulled in several directions or could be. This can lead to some odd decision making or to a deviation from the way things have gone in the past.

horsepig

09-05-2011, 09:58 PM

I think I'm gonna boot (throw chunks).

Nomad

09-05-2011, 10:05 PM

:pop2: talk about throwing a brick at the hornet's nest:lol:

I don't know if I believe this, but who knows what decisions are made in that FO.

MOtorboat

09-05-2011, 10:05 PM

No. Let me explain to you a little something about how business works. If you arrive at a point where you have poor cashflow and are unable to pay your debts, creditors start to line up for your assets. Bowlen's ownership partners know this. In addition to that, you have Kaiser with a possible right of first refusal to go along with partners who might also have some provision for buying Bowlens shares. Whatever the makeup of Bowlen's co-owners can affect Bowlen's decision making. Bowlen is either being pulled in several directions or could be. This can lead to some odd decision making or to a deviation from the way things have gone in the past.

Except there hasn't been odd decision making when money is factored, unless you spout conspiracy theories, as you regurgitated in the OP

The whole conspiracy is bunk because the Broncos have thrown money around like crazy the last six years and continue to do so.

On top of all that, what creditors does he owe? The business has been making money for 40 years. He's long paid off any creditors on the Broncos. Other investments, maybe not, but the Broncos he surely has.

Now, if he's skimming the Broncos profits for other losses, we have a problem, but there's no proof of that at all.

Ravage!!!

09-05-2011, 10:39 PM

Now, if he's skimming the Broncos profits for other losses, we have a problem, but there's no proof of that at all.

None, except that someone started the rumor that Bowlen is in financial difficulty, and it spread like wildfire. Yet another rumor that people continued to repeat repeat and repeat until its believed to be fact....except there is not a single ounce of factual documentation to back it up OTHER than people on a message board spewing out rumor and conjecture.

chazoe60

09-05-2011, 10:59 PM

I don't know Bowlen's financial situation, though I assume it's better than mine ;), and frankly I don't care. What I do care about is that the Denver Broncos field the most competitive team possible. The fact that we are $20Mil under the cap (thats the figure I've read multie times) and the fact we don't have a viable backup OL IMHO anyway, and we don't have a healthy DT that isn't more than a rotational guy is a little disheartening.

GEM

09-05-2011, 11:31 PM

If someone baked you a cake, would you better see this?

Dont insult carol like that. She is one of our more rational members and just because she is female doesnt give you the right to treat her that way. Save the sexism shit.

Timmy!

09-05-2011, 11:55 PM

If Tebow was better than Orton, Tebow would be starting. If Tebow was the Starter, Orton would have restructured his contract to make a trade happen.

No team in the NFL would ever, ever keep the better QB on the bench over a few million dollars. Dawkins restructuring of his contract would have paid Tebows money this year. Its only like 4 million more.

Face it dude. Orton is the better QB by a very, very large margin.

Amen brother. Orton, despite his numerous flaws is just better than tebow. The
Tebow fan bois just can't accept this, they all know better than professionals, most fans, and all naysayers. To say tebow isn't ready yet is a sin and we will all burn. Its retarded. I still have hope for tebow, he has some good attributes, but reads a defense and goes through progressions like a 6 year old trying to read war and peace. Maybe in time that will change, maybe not.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand

09-06-2011, 12:02 AM

Give me a break - and I would like to see the articles where it states that Bowlen is in financial trouble - the Broncos have sold out each game for how many years - second longest streak only to Washington.

I have posted the Westword article several times :coffee: The discussion of Bowlen having cash flow has been around since they built the luxury boxes at old Mile High. That was the point-to generate cash flow. That was also the selling point for the new stadium-to remain competitive and cure cash flow issues.

Bowlen may be valued as a billionaire based largely on the worth of the broncos but that is WORTH. Worth and actual cash on hand/cash flow are two VERY different things.

None, except that someone started the rumor that Bowlen is in financial difficulty, and it spread like wildfire. Yet another rumor that people continued to repeat repeat and repeat until its believed to be fact....except there is not a single ounce of factual documentation to back it up OTHER than people on a message board spewing out rumor and conjecture.

It was well reported that the Broncos missing the PO's and a HOME PO game the year we lost to Buffalo played a large part in Bowlen's decision to fire Shanahan. It was noted several times that the worth of a home PO game is in the neighborhood of 20 Million and Bowlen wasn't only counting on that money but needed it.

The Bowlen cash flow problems have been around since the day he bought the team from Kaiser long before chat rooms and forums. Again, the Westword article spelled it out quite clearly.

BroncoStud

09-06-2011, 12:24 AM

He would still be cheeper than Orton. 22 million over the course of 4 years? Thats a bargain for a starting QB.

The real reason he isnt starting is because he isnt nearly as good as Orton. :harf:

Put Orton behind the 2nd string offensive line and he'll look like the worst QB on this roster. I just hope they're all gone next year, total house-cleaning.

claymore

09-06-2011, 06:43 AM

Put Orton behind the 2nd string offensive line and he'll look like the worst QB on this roster. I just hope they're all gone next year, total house-cleaning.

Put your helmet on and ride out the year with Orton. Tebow isnt the answer yet. We cannot open the playbook up with Tebow and that would be unfair to the team/everyone.

claymore

09-06-2011, 06:51 AM

No. Let me explain to you a little something about how business works. If you arrive at a point where you have poor cashflow and are unable to pay your debts, creditors start to line up for your assets. Bowlen's ownership partners know this. In addition to that, you have Kaiser with a possible right of first refusal to go along with partners who might also have some provision for buying Bowlens shares. Whatever the makeup of Bowlen's co-owners can affect Bowlen's decision making. Bowlen is either being pulled in several directions or could be. This can lead to some odd decision making or to a deviation from the way things have gone in the past.

Broncos profit 50 million a year with 12% growth. He isnt hurting. He is excercising fiscal responsibility. I feel we are building a foundation right now. Not wasting resources on scrubs.

Tebow will start when and if he is ready. Not sooner, unless Ortons ankles explode.

chazoe60

09-06-2011, 06:54 AM

Tebow or Quinn will start at some point this season. We'll be out of playoff contention by week 10 or so and Orton will be benched or hurt at some point, he always is.

claymore

09-06-2011, 07:07 AM

Tebow or Quinn will start at some point this season. We'll be out of playoff contention by week 10 or so and Orton will be benched or hurt at some point, he always is.

The post said today that Quin is the primary backup if Orton gets hurt. Tebow will be in situational roles. And there are plays specifically designed for him.

I see Tebow as our redzone/4th and 1 QB.

I think in our week division we will be in the playoff hunt late into the season. Hopefully. :D

Slick

09-06-2011, 07:14 AM

TXBRONC

09-06-2011, 08:51 AM

I remember as a little kid my mom telling me she didnt see how bowlen even bought the team because he was mildly successful in real estate but not nearly rich enough to be buying an nfl team.

I have no trouble believing he might be a little cash strapped after the real estate market took a dump, paying 3 coaches, and paying years and years of dead cap money. Dont know it as fact but i could believe it.

However if rumors about bowlen are true, i still dont think it dictated who is the starting qb.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If Denver isn't finished with paying what they own Shanahan I would imagine they are very close. As far as McDaniels is concerned I think they're done paying him what they owed him. From what I remember when McDaniels left it was said that Denver got a settlement that was very favorable to them.

Jsteve01

09-06-2011, 09:14 AM

This thread is so full of innuendo and hearsay, it would make the publisher of the National Enquirer blush. Let's see here, what we have as the basis for this entire crap pie is a speculative post with zero, that's right, zero evidence. and we're now 7 freaking pages in?and the OP has resorted to name calling since like his second post to defend his stance? Utter and complete garbage AOE. If you're going to throw this crap out there you might expect to get a little skepticism. And you're the first guy to try the old Ad hominem route, so have some integrity and back off the insults.

Lastly, the idea that 4 million dollars would keep the Broncos from putting the best product they could on the field is completely asinine. If you don't think Tebow and wins would contribute to more revenue than the 4 million in question then you flat shouldn't even be contributing to discussions about football economics.

Jsteve01

09-06-2011, 09:18 AM

I remember as a little kid my mom telling me she didnt see how bowlen even bought the team because he was mildly successful in real estate but not nearly rich enough to be buying an nfl team.

I have no trouble believing he might be a little cash strapped after the real estate market took a dump, paying 3 coaches, and paying years and years of dead cap money. Dont know it as fact but i could believe it.

However if rumors about bowlen are true, i still dont think it dictated who is the starting qb.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Im not for one instant denying that Bowlen may or may not be in dire straits financially. I don't know. I've seen no evidence to support either conclusion so I'll remain in the dark. The huge jump comes in when we act like Tebow's miniscule 4 million dollar number has something to do with who starts because he'd generate that in revenue dollars and if he were truly better, the wins would generate revenue as well.

pnbronco

09-06-2011, 09:19 AM

I remember as a little kid my mom telling me she didnt see how bowlen even bought the team because he was mildly successful in real estate but not nearly rich enough to be buying an nfl team.

I have no trouble believing he might be a little cash strapped after the real estate market took a dump, paying 3 coaches, and paying years and years of dead cap money. Dont know it as fact but i could believe it.

However if rumors about bowlen are true, i still dont think it dictated who is the starting qb.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

That's pretty much how I see it. It's been a really tough couple of years, so he may or may not be cash strapped. I just don't see A (Mr. Bowlen is cash poor) + B (Tebow is not the starting QB) = C (the reason Tebow is not starting because Mr. Bowlen is cash poor)

BroncoJoe

09-06-2011, 09:19 AM

Tebow does not have escalators in his contract for playing time. Well, not 100% true, but it's only around $1MM.

/thread

Dzone

09-06-2011, 09:22 AM

Its clear that the reason Tebow wasnt given reps with the first team is because he has escalators in his contract...He should be starting, but that would cost too much.
:pound::pound:

vandammage13

09-06-2011, 09:51 AM

If Denver isn't finished with paying what they own Shanahan I would imagine they are very close. As far as McDaniels is concerned I think they're done paying him what they owed him. From what I remember when McDaniels left it was said that Denver got a settlement that was very favorable to them.

I'm sure the McD settlement was favorable to the Broncos...

They probably had a lot of leverage since they had grounds to fire him with cause after spygate II.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 09:59 AM

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 10:09 AM

No one said the Broncos are broke, but Bowlen is fiscally restrained and struggling according to reputable sources,

What reputable sources? So far the only thing I've witnesses is posters quoting "rumor" (which in your very posts, state they were). So if its just "rumor"... then there must not be reputable sources to back such claims.

compucomp

09-06-2011, 10:11 AM

The Tebowites.... they mad.

TXBRONC

09-06-2011, 10:19 AM

I'm sure the McD settlement was favorable to the Broncos...

They probably had a lot of leverage since they had grounds to fire him with cause after spygate II.

I don't think they could use Spygate II as leverage considering that Ellis said something to the effect there wasn't anything to it.

I think what McDaniels about the original Spygate is part of what they used for leverage. When McDaniels first arrived he was asked about Spygate and he claimed he didn't know anything about it. Fast foward to just after Spygate II Jay Glazer broke a story that in closed meeting McDaniels explained in detail the difference between Spygate and Spygate II. Glazer's source also said McDaniels warned his staff if what he said ever got they could all lose their jobs.

I also wouldn't doubt that McDaniels combative nature with player, staff, and other front office people were part of Denver's leverage.

PAINTERDAVE

09-06-2011, 10:23 AM

Black.

(Just giving someone the opportunity to come back and argue -White)

.

PAINTERDAVE

09-06-2011, 10:28 AM

The Tebowites.... they mad.

The Ortonites.... they bland.

Slick

09-06-2011, 10:32 AM

Although, for those heavily involved in real estate, this is when they are making the MOST money, not less.

Sure, the smart ones that bought after the bottom fell out.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 10:51 AM

The thread was never about why Tebow isn't starting. MUG stated several times that he thought Orton was the better QB.

The thread was about EFX stating there would be a competition when there wasn't one. How do you evaluate someone under different circumstances and call it a fair comparison? I'm not saying his theory is correct but I do understand his sentiments behind not having a QB competition.

I don't believe there ever was a competition. Why is it that other teams (Redskins with Beck and Grossman, or even San Fran with Kaepernick and Smith) rotated their QBs with the 1s to give them fair comparison?

Those are the kind of questions people are asking.

Before anyone jumps the gun, I think had their been a competition like those other teams, Orton still would have won.

I'd also like to add, how can you deem anything a competition when one guy is named the starter from the get go, gets all his reps with the 1s while the other guys get 2nd and 3rd team guys, and then you evaluate their talents on a playing field that isn't level?

While I still think Orton is the best QB (for a win now approach), I think Quinn would look totally different behind an OL worth a damn and "Mr. Spectacular Catch for No Reason" Lloyd reeling in passes. The same goes for Tebow. I'm not saying they would be world beaters but they both would look different.

weazel

09-06-2011, 10:54 AM

Saw this at BroncoMania

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=192962

LMFAO... no

The reason he isnt starting is because he's not as good

Why do you guys need a conspiracy theory for the reason your boy isnt good enough?

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 11:11 AM

The thread was never about why Tebow isn't starting. MUG stated several times that he thought Orton was the better QB.

The thread was about EFX stating there would be a competition when there wasn't one. How do you evaluate someone under different circumstances and call it a fair comparison? I'm not saying his theory is correct but I do understand his sentiments behind not having a QB competition.

I don't believe there ever was a competition. Why is it that other teams (Redskins with Beck and Grossman, or even San Fran with Kaepernick and Smith) rotated their QBs with the 1s to give them fair comparison?

Those are the kind of questions people are asking.

Before anyone jumps the gun, I think had their been a competition like those other teams, Orton still would have won.

In practice, it does not matter who a QB is throwing to - if receiver xyz is open, and the QB misses him by a mile - not good. The DP sports writers, and different tv/radio media who were at all practices, except those closed to the media, have all stated that Orton DEFINITELY has earned being the starter. Why can't people understand - accept this?

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:17 AM

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:17 AM

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:19 AM

In practice, it does not matter who a QB is throwing to - if receiver xyz is open, and the QB misses him by a mile - not good. The DP sports writers, and different tv/radio media who were at all practices, except those closed to the media, have all stated that Orton DEFINITELY has earned being the starter. Why can't people understand - accept this?

To my knowledge there is only ONE report of a bad practice. Nowhere have i seen any more reports that it was a repeated problem by Tebow or Quinn. In fact, most of reports following the initial one said that Tebow had improved. Furthermore, Kurt Warner has said that earning the starting position isnt done in practice, but in the preseason. Who has more credibility? A beat reporter or an actual football player?

Now, Orton has played fine in preseason and has the most experience so going by that alone i can see why Fox is choosing to start him. But really, given what we saw in preseason regarding the poor Oline and backup talent (if you want to call it that} do you really believe that Tebow or Quinn would look as bad as they did had they played with the starters? I dont think so.

Finally, i have no problem with Fox going with Orton. In order to keep his job he has to go with what he is most comfortable with. Right now, the experience that Orton has, in order to keep the lockerroom happy its the best move for Fox after failing to unload Orton. My problem is, if he is your guy than dont make claims that the competition is "open" when its really not. Again, im fine with going into the season with Orton as im not expecting much from any of the QB's at this point. But im just tired of the shenanigans by our HC's.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:23 AM

You have to be close to get starting reps with the starting players. If you aren't close, you pretty much lost the competition long before it had a chance to get started. In Washington, there isn't much difference between Beck and Grossman, so it seemed that the coaches had more things to try and differentiate.

In Denver, there was no comparison between Orton and the other two. Where did we see the competition? Between Tebow and Quinn. The coaches changed up which of those two got playing time. The competition for the starting job was won long ago. You can't expect the coaches to waste time putting back-ups in with a shortened offseason.

As you said, you believe Orton would have won anyway. Don't you think the coaches could see such a large difference that they too could easily see who was the "winner" without having to take away valuable time for the starter to play with the starters?

I'm not disagreeing with you. If they already know, why not say that? If Tebow is or Quinn is 3rd on the depth chart, why not say that? It's already been stated (and proved) they don't make their decisions based on what the fans think, so why baby them? I'm not sure about anyone else but if they said, "Orton is clearly the number 1 and the competition is between Tebow and Quinn for #2," I would completely be okay with that. There would be nothing to argue or decipher, you know?

I guess the whole media circus crap is redundant. Honestly, I'm happy about the way things turned out as far as Orton starting. At least when Tebow has a shot to prove himself, there won't be any reason other than "he doesn't get it" because there won't be a lockout.

I just think the whole ordeal is silly.

Nomad

09-06-2011, 11:23 AM

You articulated that very well, North!

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:24 AM

If said QB missed an open receiver because he was running from his life since he didn't have Clady and Company protecting him, does that count to?

Also, "we talkin' bout practice?"

Practice is where you win your starting roles. No coach is going to base his starters from meaningless pre-season games. I promise you that Grossman won his starting job in Washington MUCH more based on practice than from pre-season games. There are much more reps, going over EVERYTHING against your #1 defense that is actually running REAL defenses during practice. Not so much in those lame pre-season games.

If things are neck-n-neck based on practice performance, then you might see some "tie breaker" from a preseason game, but there has to be a reason to believe they are truly neck-n-neck to begin with.

Some have tried to use Griese as an example of winning the job with pre-season games. No, he won his job in practices. Some try to point out that Terrell Davis got his job based on a pre-season special teams tackle. I doubt that was the sole reason he earned a spot on the team, but I promise you that tackle didn't earn him the starting RB spot. That was done in practice.

Tebow didn't lose his job because he didn't play with the #1 spot in pre-season games. He didn't EARN his starting spot based on his performances in practice. If you can't read the right defenses, throw to the right guys, make the right calls, or make the corrrect audibles in practice.. then there is no reason to believe that you will magically change in game time.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:26 AM

You articulated that very well, North!

Im serious. I love Ravage but this is what the difference is between our Olines.

Put me and Rav in shark infested waters with chum around our neck. The one catch?

I have a shark cage, he doesnt. Now tell me? Who has it worse? :lol:

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:28 AM

, Kurt Warner has said that earning the starting position isnt done in practice, but in the preseason. Who has more credibility? A beat reporter or an actual football player?

He said that you earn your starting role in GAMES. He didn't say pre-season games.

I've talked about this with Slick, and would bet you big money that if we were talking face to face, he would amend his comment. I would be he would agree with the statement

"you earn your starting role by how you play in practice, but you KEEP your starting job by how you play in games."

Kurt EARNED his role with practice by earning the back-up role to Green, then kept his starting job by how he performed on the field.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:28 AM

I promise you that Grossman won his starting job in Washington MUCH more based on practice than from pre-season games.

I have not heard of who won the starting job although i told a friend who is a Skins fan that Grossman should start. However, i also know for fact that Grossman worked with the starters in practice unlike our backup heroes. Big difference.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:29 AM

Practice is where you win your starting roles. No coach is going to base his starters from meaningless pre-season games. I promise you that Grossman won his starting job in Washington MUCH more based on practice than from pre-season games. There are much more reps, going over EVERYTHING against your #1 defense that is actually running REAL defenses during practice. Not so much in those lame pre-season games.

If things are neck-n-neck based on practice performance, then you might see some "tie breaker" from a preseason game, but there has to be a reason to believe they are truly neck-n-neck to begin with.

Some have tried to use Griese as an example of winning the job with pre-season games. No, he won his job in practices. Some try to point out that Terrell Davis got his job based on a pre-season special teams tackle. I doubt that was the sole reason he earned a spot on the team, but I promise you that tackle didn't earn him the starting RB spot. That was done in practice.

Tebow didn't lose his job because he didn't play with the #1 spot in pre-season games. He didn't EARN his starting spot based on his performances in practice. If you can't read the right defenses, throw to the right guys, make the right calls, or make the corrrect audibles in practice.. then there is no reason to believe that you will magically change in game time.

Once again, I'm not disagreeing, at least not completely. People keep making this about Tebow while Quinn is left out. Before Quinn shit the proverbial bed (lol) he was having a decent camp as well as preseason. Orton is so damn good that even with a good camp from Quinn he wasn't able to earn any reps with the 1s until they were given to him because Orton had a baby?

If that's the case, I am really worried about what may happen this season.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:30 AM

I'm not disagreeing with you. If they already know, why not say that? If Tebow is or Quinn is 3rd on the depth chart, why not say that? It's already been stated (and proved) they don't make their decisions based on what the fans think, so why baby them? I'm not sure about anyone else but if they said, "Orton is clearly the number 1 and the competition is between Tebow and Quinn for #2," I would completely be okay with that. There would be nothing to argue or decipher, you know?

I guess the whole media circus crap is redundant. Honestly, I'm happy about the way things turned out as far as Orton starting. At least when Tebow has a shot to prove himself, there won't be any reason other than "he doesn't get it" because there won't be a lockout.

I just think the whole ordeal is silly.

I'm pretty sure Fox said from the get-go that Orton is the starter. The media is what made the competition between Orton and Tebow because of the talk of trading Orton. But from the moment that the trade didn't go through, I'm pretty sure that Fox has said nothing other than Orton is the starter.

vandammage13

09-06-2011, 11:30 AM

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I found it amusing...
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/31712/ranking-afc-west-backup-qbs

According to ESPN's Bill Williamson, Tebow isn't even the 4th best backup in the entire AFC West.

He has it like this:

1. Billy Volek
2. Kyle Boller
3. Brady Quinn
4. Tyler Palko

Tyler Palko?? C'mon...He never mentioned Tebow by name, but it is easy to see the intent of the article.

How many other divisional bloggers on ESPN wrote a post ranking the backups in their respective divisions?...

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:30 AM

I have not heard of who won the starting job although i told a friend who is a Skins fan that Grossman should start. However, i also know for fact that Grossman worked with the starters in practice unlike our backup heroes. Big difference.

They reported on ESPN that Grossman won. They said Grossman won based on his practice because they were fairly close in the preseason games.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:30 AM

He said that you earn your starting role in GAMES. He didn't say pre-season games.

I've talked about this with Slick, and would bet you big money that if we were talking face to face, he would amend his comment. I would be he would agree with the statement

"you earn your starting role by how you play in practice, but you KEEP your starting job by how you play in games."

Kurt EARNED his role with practice by earning the back-up role to Green, then kept his starting job by how he performed on the field.

He got his initial gig because Green went down. The only thing we would agree upon is that if Orton went down and either Quinn or Tebow came in and lit it up they deserve the nod over Orton when he came back. But it wasnt like Warner won the starting job over Green.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:32 AM

I have not heard of who won the starting job although i told a friend who is a Skins fan that Grossman should start. However, i also know for fact that Grossman worked with the starters in practice unlike our backup heroes. Big difference.

Both worked with the starting teams in practice, as its been widely covered since Beck came to Washington. But its now been announced that Grossman is the starter for week one.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:33 AM

He got his initial gig because Green went down. The only thing we would agree upon is that if Orton went down and either Quinn or Tebow came in and lit it up they deserve the nod over Orton when he came back. But it wasnt like Warner won the starting job over Green.

Right. He EARNED his number 2 spot..thus earning the chance to start when Green went down. He then kept that job by game performance.

I personally expect Tebow to be playing this season after Orton goes down.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:34 AM

I'm pretty sure Fox said from the get-go that Orton is the starter. The media is what made the competition between Orton and Tebow because of the talk of trading Orton. But from the moment that the trade didn't go through, I'm pretty sure that Fox has said nothing other than Orton is the starter.

Then why say there is a competition if Orton is the starter. The media didn't make that up.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18319465

"I like the guys on our team right now, but I can't tell you how much yet. I've only spent one day with them," Fox said Monday. "You find out how much you like them when you get on the field with them. There's nothing like seeing them with the naked eye."

That applies to players at every position, but especially for players who will be at new positions in the Broncos' 4-3 defense. And at quarterback. Fox reiterated that Kyle Orton, Tim Tebow and Brady Quinn will be in wide-open competition when training camp starts.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:36 AM

Right. He EARNED his number 2 spot..thus earning the chance to start when Green went down. He then kept that job by game performance.

I personally expect Tebow to be playing this season after Orton goes down.

My only question is who was the third stringer? I figure it would of been a no name and highly doubt it was a former 1st rounder.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:37 AM

Then why say there is a competition if Orton is the starter. The media didn't make that up.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18319465

from what you just quoted, I didn't see a quote from Fox that said there was a competition, only where the writer said it.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:37 AM

Then why say there is a competition if Orton is the starter. The media didn't make that up.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18319465

Thats my only problem. If Orto is your starter than go with it. Dont be hypocritical saying theres an open competition and then not give the backup QB's the same level of help that your starter has. Even if Orton had played with the scrubs and looked good would of helped his cause with that comment. But...

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:39 AM

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:39 AM

from what you just quoted, I didn't see a quote from Fox that said there was a competition, only where the writer said it.

http://mymaddenpad.com/2011/07/08/broncos-coach-john-fox-says-qb-spot-still-wide-open/

Broncos head coach John Fox has said that there will be an open competition for the team’s starting quarterback job, a position he maintained on Thursday to Woody Paige of The Denver Post.

Fox also listed what he’s looking for in a starter.

“I prefer a gamer to a good practice player,” said Fox. “I want someone who will execute under pressure in a game.”

Here you go.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:40 AM

My only question is who was the third stringer? I figure it would of been a no name and highly doubt it was a former 1st rounder.

Joe Germain. But I don't understand the relevance. I think I'm confused on the comparison.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:41 AM

I'm just going to say this: Regardless of my position on the matter, I just came to provide clarity as to what was being discussed in the original thread because people were making it a "Conspiracy as to why Tebow isn't starting" discussion.

It was never intended to be that. Quinn was affected by this also. Basically in a nutshell, MUG felt like EFX said there was a competition when there really wasn't one. At least a fair one. I'm not sure what John Fox meant by "wide-open" but I'm reserved to think that it wasn't given how the lockout affected everything.

Well, there are a couple of guys who just dont like Tebow so thats part of the problem with the trolling. They are equally as bad as the Tebow fanatics in my opinion. But, Agent didnt help his cause by insulting people either. Just proves how fast a thread can go to shit when you mix both those elements. :tsk:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 11:42 AM

None, except that someone started the rumor that Bowlen is in financial difficulty, and it spread like wildfire. Yet another rumor that people continued to repeat repeat and repeat until its believed to be fact....except there is not a single ounce of factual documentation to back it up OTHER than people on a message board spewing out rumor and conjecture.

The Broncos have been in the top ten in revenue for about the last decade, yet for the 3rd consecutive year we are in the bottom five of player spending.

People keep citing what we gave Doom and Champ for contracts as some sort of evidence that Bowlen isn't cash strapped. Well, how much money did he give them up front? Zero....

What will be really telling is if the Broncos continue to be in the bottom third of salary spending next year as well. My gut tells me that the Broncos won't spend close to the cap until 2013 when the CBA mandates it.

You say there is no evidence Bowlen is cash strapped, well, based on what I've seen for the last few years, there is no evidence he isn't.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:42 AM

Joe Germain. But I don't understand the relevance. I think I'm confused on the comparison.

Not a whole lot of relevance, i was just curious.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:42 AM

from what you just quoted, I didn't see a quote from Fox that said there was a competition, only where the writer said it.

Actually I might have gotten things mixed up. Sorry about that. Here is what Fox said that I got from that article.

"I've said it before and I mean it. It'll be a competition," Fox said of the quarterbacks. "Competition is what this game's about, whether if it's an opponent or a depth chart. It's been this way as long as I can remember."

Read more: Thanks to NFL lockout, Broncos' John Fox finds waiting game hard to coach - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18319465#ixzz1XBvqQALk
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Tned

09-06-2011, 11:43 AM

To my knowledge there is only ONE report of a bad practice. Nowhere have i seen any more reports that it was a repeated problem by Tebow or Quinn. In fact, most of reports following the initial one said that Tebow had improved. Furthermore, Kurt Warner has said that earning the starting position isnt done in practice, but in the preseason. Who has more credibility? A beat reporter or an actual football player?

Now, Orton has played fine in preseason and has the most experience so going by that alone i can see why Fox is choosing to start him. But really, given what we saw in preseason regarding the poor Oline and backup talent (if you want to call it that} do you really believe that Tebow or Quinn would look as bad as they did had they played with the starters? I dont think so.

Finally, i have no problem with Fox going with Orton. In order to keep his job he has to go with what he is most comfortable with. Right now, the experience that Orton has, in order to keep the lockerroom happy its the best move for Fox after failing to unload Orton. My problem is, if he is your guy than dont make claims that the competition is "open" when its really not. Again, im fine with going into the season with Orton as im not expecting much from any of the QB's at this point. But im just tired of the shenanigans by our HC's.

Actually, I read/heard a number of reports from both local media and national media saying that Tebow looked nowhere near ready to start. The two things cited most frequently was very poor accuracy, and holding on to the ball too long, which was attributed to having difficulty with his reads/progressions. That he often threw the ball too late, after the receiver was no longer open.

I can't tell you all of the reporters I heard say some variation of those two things, but there were several.

One that definitely comes to mind was Pat Kerwin (sp??) on Sirius NFL Radio. He and Tim Ryan did the training camp tour when it stopped in Denver. Kerwin said that as a personnel guy, he had been in the camp of starting Tebow to get him experience, as the team was rebuilding, but after watching him throw 50+ passes, it was clear that he was nowhere near being ready to start in the NFL. He needed more time. That's a massive paraphrase, but captures the essence of what he said.

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 11:44 AM

Then why say there is a competition if Orton is the starter. The media didn't make that up.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18319465

While Fox repeatedly said Orton was the starter, but it was a competition (Elway regurgitated the same company line numerous times), what you just posted doesn't state that at all.

Northman

09-06-2011, 11:44 AM

Actually, I read/heard a number of reports from both local media and national media saying that Tebow looked nowhere near ready to start. The two things cited most frequently was very poor accuracy, and holding on to the ball too long, which was attributed to having difficulty with his reads/progressions. That he often threw the ball too late, after the receiver was no longer open.

I can't tell you all of the reporters I heard say some variation of those two things, but there were several.

One that definitely comes to mind was Pat Kerwin (sp??) on Sirius NFL Radio. He and Tim Ryan did the training camp tour when it stopped in Denver. Kerwin said that as a personnel guy, he had been in the camp of starting Tebow to get him experience, as the team was rebuilding, but after watching him throw 50+ passes, it was clear that he was nowhere near being ready to start in the NFL. He needed more time. That's a massive paraphrase, but captures the essence of what he said.

Now, was this when Tebow was working with the starting Oline?

Slick

09-06-2011, 11:46 AM

They could have nipped this whole thing in the bud when the Miami deal fell through. Allowing the media to speculate for weeks is bad for business and fan moral.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 11:46 AM

While Fox repeatedly said Orton was the starter, but it was a competition (Elway regurgitated the same company line numerous times), what you just posted doesn't state that at all.

You'll have to check my post after that. I didn't go back and edit but I did post a quote with relevance to that article.

Tned

09-06-2011, 11:50 AM

Now, was this when Tebow was working with the starting Oline?

Probably not, but I think most of it was 7 on 7 drills.

Isn't that no defensive line? Just 4 DBs + 3 LBs? I'm not 100% sure what 7 on 7 is, but that's what I was always thinking. It lets them work on their routes, timing, etc., without the pressure on the QB.

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 12:02 PM

You'll have to check my post after that. I didn't go back and edit but I did post a quote with relevance to that article.

A competition can still have an incumbant, or a favorite to win the job. Orton was the "starter" and he could have been beaten out for the position, but Quinn and Tebow aren't good enough to do that.

Northman

09-06-2011, 12:12 PM

Probably not, but I think most of it was 7 on 7 drills.

Isn't that no defensive line? Just 4 DBs + 3 LBs? I'm not 100% sure what 7 on 7 is, but that's what I was always thinking. It lets them work on their routes, timing, etc., without the pressure on the QB.

I highly doubt there is no pressure on the QB. While they may not be tackling or hitting them they have to give them the impression like they are in a real game enviroment. Working on routes is generally done in warmups.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 12:20 PM

You say there is no evidence Bowlen is cash strapped, well, based on what I've seen for the last few years, there is no evidence he isn't.

But the accusations aren't that he isn't..its the rumors that try to point fingers that he is. Based on what, salary spent?

Carol showed that Denver has one of the highest payrolls in the NFL. Seems if he was that cash strapped, that would be something that would be minimized first.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 12:23 PM

Now, was this when Tebow was working with the starting Oline?

In practice, surely he could do it without being hit by the defensive players. This may have happened in drills that didn't even have an OL, just a center and the skill positions.

Northman

09-06-2011, 12:24 PM

In practice, surely he could do it without being hit by the defensive players. This may have happened in drills that didn't even have an OL, just a center and the skill positions.

Maybe.

Anyone have a breakdown on that?

swaiy

09-06-2011, 12:25 PM

A competition can still have an incumbant, or a favorite to win the job. Orton was the "starter" and he could have been beaten out for the position, but Quinn and Tebow aren't good enough to do that.

All of that is true. I'm not advocating that Quinn or Tebow beat out Orton. I even stated with my first post in this thread that I believe Orton is the best QB for now.

The difference in opinion comes when it comes to what is considered a competition. An incumbent and favorite are not interchangeable. How can it be a 'fair' competition if someone is a favorite? Shouldn't everyone be viewed on the same playing field?

Who's the fastest in the 100m dash?
A) The guy running straight for the finish
B) The guy jumping hurdles on the way to the finish
C) The guy wearing a parachute

You don't know. They aren't all on the same playing field to be evaluated. As I stated, it's obvious Fox feels his best choice is Orton and I'd have to agree to him. I mean you don't step into a new job and risk it on a guy still developing. There isn't anything wrong with that. I just have a hard time understanding why someone would chose to label it as a competition for a starting spot when you already know who the starter is.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 12:26 PM

I highly doubt there is no pressure on the QB. While they may not be tackling or hitting them they have to give them the impression like they are in a real game enviroment. Working on routes is generally done in warmups.

7 on 7 drills is more common. a Center, QB, your RBs, TEs, and WRs (depending on the formation you are working on). You take your snaps and work against the coverages and throwing your routes. The reads are the same since the QB doesn't read the DL, onlly the LBs and the DBs... and of course the WRs working on their routes and adjustments. This is pretty common.

The DL and the OL are off working somewhere else, working on their different drills.

Tned

09-06-2011, 12:28 PM

In practice, surely he could do it without being hit by the defensive players. This may have happened in drills that didn't even have an OL, just a center and the skill positions.

Which is what I thought 7 on 7 drills were. A center, QB, and then 5 WR/TE/RBs, versus the back seven for the defense.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 12:30 PM

Actually I might have gotten things mixed up. Sorry about that. Here is what Fox said that I got from that article.

The article you referenced in your post was dated 6-21. Orton was not named the starter until 8-22:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18733153

From article:

Head coach John Fox made official Monday what anyone who watched the Broncos training camp and the team's first two preseason games already knew: Kyle Orton is the team's starting quarterback.

Tned

09-06-2011, 12:30 PM

A competition can still have an incumbant, or a favorite to win the job. Orton was the "starter" and he could have been beaten out for the position, but Quinn and Tebow aren't good enough to do that.

I agree with your description of an open competition. Orton was the starter going in, and one of the other two guys had to beat him out. Typically, when you have an incumbant starter, he has to outplay the starter to take the job, although sometimes there are other factors like youth, contract status, etc.

While it's parsing your words, I would change "aren't good enough to do that" to "weren't good enough...." It sounds like you are not saying, "at this point in time, they couldn't beat out Orton," but instead that they aren't good enough period to beat him out now, or in the future.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 12:38 PM

The article you referenced in your post was dated 6-21. Orton was not named the starter until 8-22:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18733153

From article:

Perhaps I should go back to edit my post. I already posted the actual quote stating that this was a competition. That's why I posted it.

Whether Orton was named starter or not doesn't matter. At least not to me.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 12:38 PM

All of that is true. I'm not advocating that Quinn or Tebow beat out Orton. I even stated with my first post in this thread that I believe Orton is the best QB for now.

The difference in opinion comes when it comes to what is considered a competition. An incumbent and favorite are not interchangeable. How can it be a 'fair' competition if someone is a favorite? Shouldn't everyone be viewed on the same playing field?

Who's the fastest in the 100m dash?
A) The guy running straight for the finish
B) The guy jumping hurdles on the way to the finish
C) The guy wearing a parachute

You don't know. They aren't all on the same playing field to be evaluated. As I stated, it's obvious Fox feels his best choice is Orton and I'd have to agree to him. I mean you don't step into a new job and risk it on a guy still developing. There isn't anything wrong with that. I just have a hard time understanding why someone would chose to label it as a competition for a starting spot when you already know who the starter is.

No. This "fair" thing doesn't really work in real life. As the article that Carol just pointed out, that its clear that Orton was the starter. Does that mean it wasn't a fair competition for Tebow to beat him out? No. It means that Tebow would simply have to prove that he's CLOSE to Orton in order to win more reps with the starting crew.

Unfortunately, he wasn't able to do that. If early on he was making the right reads and right throws (and accurate throws), he would be considered closer to taking over the spot. Problem is, he didn't.

When working on 7 on 7 drills, QBs jump in and out of the rotation. Sometimes you'll have all your starting WRs in, sometimes you'll have a mix. Same with the defensive side of the ball. Sometimes you'll see all the starting CBs in, and sometimes the coaches threw another guy into the mix.

So to say that Tebow didn't "Get to work at aall with the same people"... is just completely wrong. Thats the fans LOOKING for something to say is unfair. Tebow (and Quinn) both had ample time, and plenty of work, to prove that they were "UP" for the job in taking Orton's starting spot. Neither could unseat. Neither could show that they were close enough to even consider taking reps away from Kyle.

Rarely will you see ANY team going into camp with everything completely equal and both QBs purely starting at ground zero. There is already a pecking order that had been established the year prior..

swaiy

09-06-2011, 12:46 PM

No. This "fair" thing doesn't really work in real life. As the article that Carol just pointed out, that its clear that Orton was the starter. Does that mean it wasn't a fair competition for Tebow to beat him out? No. It means that Tebow would simply have to prove that he's CLOSE to Orton in order to win more reps with the starting crew.

Unfortunately, he wasn't able to do that. If early on he was making the right reads and right throws (and accurate throws), he would be considered closer to taking over the spot. Problem is, he didn't.

When working on 7 on 7 drills, QBs jump in and out of the rotation. Sometimes you'll have all your starting WRs in, sometimes you'll have a mix. Same with the defensive side of the ball. Sometimes you'll see all the starting CBs in, and sometimes the coaches threw another guy into the mix.

So to say that Tebow didn't "Get to work at aall with the same people"... is just completely wrong. Thats the fans LOOKING for something to say is unfair. Tebow (and Quinn) both had ample time, and plenty of work, to prove that they were "UP" for the job in taking Orton's starting spot. Neither could unseat. Neither could show that they were close enough to even consider taking reps away from Kyle.

Rarely will you see ANY team going into camp with everything completely equal and both QBs purely starting at ground zero. There is already a pecking order that had been established the year prior..

That bolded part is pretty much sums up the reason I feel the way I do. If it's clear, don't call it a competition. That's all I'm saying. We don't need the smokescreens, or the smoke and mirrors. Just call it what it is. I just want us to go back to the days where we rallied behind one guy instead of these factions split up among QBs.

As far as the rest of your post, I disagree but you make total sense. There's no way for me to better explain my stance on the situation because we see it differently. We would just be going in circles. :beer:

BORDERLINE

09-06-2011, 12:47 PM

I don't believe Orton is a better player than Tebow overall. Maybe a better pocket passer and quicker release. John Fox obviously did not want to tweak his offense to the liking of a player like Tebow instead Tebow will have adjust to the offense of a John Fox (May take some time). This kid was a project QB and even then showed great poise and leadership the last three games with a reeling team and a interim head coach who was the (running backs coach). I seen Orton fold too many times, seen him take phantom sacks when he could have easily picked up 3 or 5 yards.

I don't know what EFX has planed but we have been told nothing but lies from them. From ignoring DT in the draft and in free agency because they din't want to over pay, to the whole waiver wire propaganda they where pushing as a source of re-assurance that nothing came out of. in my hearts of hearts i hope they have a plan or else we will be in for a doozy of a decade.

Tned

09-06-2011, 12:51 PM

No. This "fair" thing doesn't really work in real life. As the article that Carol just pointed out, that its clear that Orton was the starter. Does that mean it wasn't a fair competition for Tebow to beat him out? No. It means that Tebow would simply have to prove that he's CLOSE to Orton in order to win more reps with the starting crew.

Unfortunately, he wasn't able to do that. If early on he was making the right reads and right throws (and accurate throws), he would be considered closer to taking over the spot. Problem is, he didn't.

When working on 7 on 7 drills, QBs jump in and out of the rotation. Sometimes you'll have all your starting WRs in, sometimes you'll have a mix. Same with the defensive side of the ball. Sometimes you'll see all the starting CBs in, and sometimes the coaches threw another guy into the mix.

So to say that Tebow didn't "Get to work at aall with the same people"... is just completely wrong. Thats the fans LOOKING for something to say is unfair. Tebow (and Quinn) both had ample time, and plenty of work, to prove that they were "UP" for the job in taking Orton's starting spot. Neither could unseat. Neither could show that they were close enough to even consider taking reps away from Kyle.

Rarely will you see ANY team going into camp with everything completely equal and both QBs purely starting at ground zero. There is already a pecking order that had been established the year prior..

From what I read from Lindsay Jones and Andrew Mason, I think Tebow even got some reps with the first team in 11 on 11, especially early on, such as in situational drills like RZ and such. Orton got the vast majority, but I'm pretty sure I've read that Tebow was given some.

dogfish

09-06-2011, 12:57 PM

you guys talkin' about practice?

Northman

09-06-2011, 12:58 PM

From what I read from Lindsay Jones and Andrew Mason, I think Tebow even got some reps with the first team in 11 on 11, especially early on, such as in situational drills like RZ and such. Orton got the vast majority, but I'm pretty sure I've read that Tebow was given some.

Can you find those links? I would love to see them.

Tned

09-06-2011, 12:59 PM

Can you find those links? I would love to see them.

They were Tweets, but let me see what I can do.

Northman

09-06-2011, 01:02 PM

They were Tweets, but let me see what I can do.

Not actual articles?

SoCalImport

09-06-2011, 01:05 PM

the whole argument that contracts had anything to do with the decision for Broncos starter is just silly. If a couple of million here or there was worth more than wins then we wouldn't be paying anyone. It'd be scrubs for scrubs pay all round.

sorry if this has been stated to death already.

Tned

09-06-2011, 01:07 PM

Not actual articles?

I don't know. Mason and Jones would tweet live from practice, telling followers who's getting snaps with what team, and giving overview of how the players were doing.

rationalfan

09-06-2011, 01:13 PM

gotta a feeling a lot of people here will be eating crow on orton this season. i hope the feeling is right.

Northman

09-06-2011, 01:14 PM

I don't know. Mason and Jones would tweet live from practice, telling followers who's getting snaps with what team, and giving overview of how the players were doing.

Yea, too unreliable for me unfortuantely. I would think that if that was the case at least in terms of equal amount of snaps that it would be reported as such. I however have found this article posted Aug 9th in which it says that Orton got almost all of the first string snaps and that Quinn and Tebow were left sharing the 2nd and 3rd stringers.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp11/story/_/id/6845029/tim-tebow-kyle-orton-denver-broncos-depth-chart

Orton has been taking almost all the first-team snaps with Tebow and Quinn sharing work with the second and third units.

Northman

09-06-2011, 01:15 PM

gotta a feeling a lot of people here will be eating crow on orton this season. i hope the feeling is right.

What feeling is that?

swaiy

09-06-2011, 01:18 PM

gotta a feeling a lot of people here will be eating crow on orton this season. i hope the feeling is right.

Would it matter though? I honestly believe Orton will be gone after this season. Not because, the Broncos don't want him but, because he doesn't want to be here.

I think the MIA trade fell through because restructuring his contract meant foregoing Free Agency even longer. That's just me though.

Tned

09-06-2011, 01:20 PM

Yea, too unreliable for me unfortuantely. I would think that if that was the case at least in terms of equal amount of snaps that it would be reported as such. I however have found this article posted Aug 9th in which it says that Orton got almost all of the first string snaps and that Quinn and Tebow were left sharing the 2nd and 3rd stringers.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp11/story/_/id/6845029/tim-tebow-kyle-orton-denver-broncos-depth-chart

If you mean their Tweets, they are the most reliable source, because they are reporting it as they see it, unlike ESPN and others that rely on the reports of local beat reporters like Jones and Mason to write their own stories.

However, I didn't say equal amount of snaps, I said some snaps with the first team. Orton always got the vast majority of first team snaps, except for the day he was excused from practice for the birth of his child.

Northman

09-06-2011, 01:43 PM

If you mean their Tweets, they are the most reliable source, because they are reporting it as they see it, unlike ESPN and others that rely on the reports of local beat reporters like Jones and Mason to write their own stories.

Unfortuantely, even though the world of tweeting is a nice way to update people on current events it is just far too vague.

However, I didn't say equal amount of snaps, I said some snaps with the first team.

But when i talk about having a fair competition i do mean equal amount of snaps. I dont care if Tebow took the snaps when Orton was with his kid, the starting position was already determined by then. What im concerned with is how many he took outside of just a couple of snaps or when Orton was absent. The thing is, you (at least on the surface) posted what you did as some sort of validation that the QB's all took the same amount of time with the starters. If i misread into that im sorry.

But at the end of the day there was no "true" competiton here. The team could of only gone one of two ways this year. Either claim it as a true rebuild like Carolina, St. Louis, Detroit, etc or have the belief they are a contender. Judging by the experience of Orton compared to the other two and judging by Fox's comments as too "Orton gives us the best chance to win now" i would say he is claiming we have a shot at the playoffs.

Ziggy

09-06-2011, 01:47 PM

Orton won the job outright. The vets in the locker room have said as much. Champ and B Lloyd haven't been shy about voicing thier opinion. While Champ should be a politician on the side, I trust B Lloyd. I'll trust the players over the media all day long and then some.

MUG seems like a nice enough guy, but he's been angry at the FO since they made thier own picks and not his in the draft. He's done everything he can to convince everyone on the kiddie forum that the Von Miller pick was a mistake, and that Franklin is a complete bust at RT. He likes to go play by play on the preseason games with his armchair GM analysis, pointing out bad play in thier game. He conveniently enough tends to ignore a lot of the good ones made, especially by Franklin. These guys are both rookies with no OTA's under thier belt. Mistakes are to be expected. If they don't show any improvement, I'll be worried. Until then, I'll enjoy watching the raw talent that they are showing. Both will be solid starters for this team for a long time to come.

When that's not enough, he comes out with a conspiracy theory against EFX. I'm one of the biggest Tebow fans on this forum, but I'll wait and see how the season plays out with Orton. There's a reason that #1 QB's get most if not all of the reps with the first teamers. Orton may not have the highest ceiling, but for right now he has the lowest floor. I have no problem with letting Tebow develop for another year. His footwork is bad, his reads are bad, and he's just not ready be a starting QB in this league. My guess is that it took our NFL caliber coaches about 1/2 of a practice to see that. That's why they're proven coaches in the NFL. Maybe he will be ready later in the season. For right now he needs to watch more film and work on his footwork. If he was starting, teams would put 8 or 9 in the box and jam the receivers. If his first read isn't there, he's a lost puppy out on the field. His options are to take a sack, or tuck it and run. That's easy to game plan against with NFL defenses.

EFX has improved our starting lineup by leaps and bounds. Depth is another story altogether.

Northman

09-06-2011, 01:50 PM

I have no problem with letting Tebow develop for another year. His footwork is bad, his reads are bad, and he's just not ready be a starting QB in this league.

I agree with this (cant state anything on MUG, dont know him personally) but just so as long as we arent drafting another QB in the first round next year this senario makes perfect sense.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 01:53 PM

I think some of you are missing the point.

The point he's trying to make is that Bowlen is cash strapped and it's affecting personnel decisions.

People tend to just dismiss the notion that Bowlen might be short on cash. Why is that? Is he untouchable?

The Broncos have been in the bottom 5 of player spending for several years now, while being in the top ten of revenue. That is a documented fact.

People like to cite the contracts given to Elvis and Champ. What were the huge signing bonuses given to these two superstars? Zero......

Here we are over 20 million under the cap, and Xanders just spewed some phony rhetoric about spending the cap minimum. Yeah Brian, I'm sure that will happen in 2013 when it's required, but until then this is just like the 80's all over again when teams with cash actually spend money on decent FA's. If Bunckley wouldn't have fallen into our laps we'd be totally screwed right now.

Ziggy

09-06-2011, 02:00 PM

If Bowlen was that cash strapped with money driving all of his decisions, McD would still be here.

Ziggy

09-06-2011, 02:04 PM

I agree with this (cant state anything on MUG, dont know him personally) but just so as long as we arent drafting another QB in the first round next year this senario makes perfect sense.

That's why I'm hoping that Tebow gets a chance to start later in the year North. He may or may not be the QB of the future, but he isn't right now. If EFX feels like a franchise guy is there at our 1st pick, it would be a bigger mistake to pass him up regardless of who we have. Ask the Green Bay GM. They actually went that route in the draft with Rogers, and with a trade for Farve while they had a very good PB in Majkowski(sp?). It paid off for super bowls both times.

I'm going to have to watch Barkley more this season. Opinions seems to be completely varying on him. While I only watched the first half of the USC game on Saturday, he was quite impressive. He made all the throws and reads with 1,3,5,and 7 step drops, and his accuracy was dead on.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:05 PM

If Bowlen was that cash strapped with money driving all of his decisions, McD would still be here.

That doesn't hold water. Ellis and Bowlen knew they were losing the fans. Besides that, they're only paying Fox about $2 million this year. How does that compare to the number they are under the cap?

This is what I keep dealing with when I cite reasons to believe Bowlen has become a penny pincher. People just dismiss it with a tongue in cheek comment.

When was the last time we gave someone a decent signing bonus?

Do you remember Elway suggesting that if there was no rookie cap the Broncos would probably trade the #2 pick?

There is plenty of evidence the Broncos have cash flow issues. Even back when the team was winning in the late 90's what did Bowlen get in trouble for? He got in trouble for deferring money to players which violated the CAP. He did that for cash flow reasons. Apparently, since the real estate bubble burst those issues have compounded.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:09 PM

Would it matter though? I honestly believe Orton will be gone after this season. Not because, the Broncos don't want him but, because he doesn't want to be here.

I think the MIA trade fell through because restructuring his contract meant foregoing Free Agency even longer. That's just me though.

I think it fell through because he was guaranteed 9 million where he was at. If the Dolphins could ahve guaranteed that same amount of money, I think he would have been gone.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:11 PM

Let's ask another question. Why does Joe Ellis still have a job? His approval rating with the fans probably isn't much better than McD's was. McD was his baby. He's the one who performed the final interview and likely told Bowlen to hire him.

Ellis still has a job because he's a business manager. He's figured out how to turn the Broncos into the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL. A team with a crappy product that still puts money in the owners pockets.

Flame away suckas! :laugh:

Ziggy

09-06-2011, 02:12 PM

That doesn't hold water. Ellis and Bowlen knew they were losing the fans. Besides that, they're only paying Fox about $2 million this year. How does that compare to the number they are under the cap?

This is what I keep dealing with when I cite reasons to believe Bowlen has become a penny pincher. People just dismiss it with a tongue in cheek comment.

When was the last time we gave someone a decent signing bonus?

Do you remember Elway suggesting that if there was no rookie cap the Broncos would probably trade the #2 pick?

There is plenty of evidence the Broncos have cash flow issues. Even back when the team was winning in the late 90's what did Bowlen get in trouble for? He got in trouble for deferring money to players which violated the CAP. He did that for cash flow reasons. Apparently, since the real estate bubble burst those issues have compounded.

Or........Bowlen was smart enough to figure out that dishing out big signing bonuses was a big part of Shanahan's downfall.

Or......Elway is smart enough to follow the example of teams like the Steelers, Packers, and Ravens by building through the draft and only paying out big bonuses to your own superstars when you have to. Who have the Broncos let go in free agency that deserved a huge signing bonus?

Or........ Never mind, we could this all day.

swaiy

09-06-2011, 02:12 PM

I think it fell through because he was guaranteed 9 million where he was at. If the Dolphins could ahve guaranteed that same amount of money, I think he would have been gone.

True but he still would have been a Free Agent after this season.

I wasn't trying to state my opinion as fact or anything. I just felt that could have been plausible.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:12 PM

I think it fell through because he was guaranteed 9 million where he was at. If the Dolphins could ahve guaranteed that same amount of money, I think he would have been gone.

Why would the Dolphins agree to a one year deal? If you're referring to a two or 3 year deal for Kyle, then why would Kyle agree to that?

Northman

09-06-2011, 02:13 PM

That's why I'm hoping that Tebow gets a chance to start later in the year North. He may or may not be the QB of the future, but he isn't right now. If EFX feels like a franchise guy is there at our 1st pick, it would be a bigger mistake to pass him up regardless of who we have. Ask the Green Bay GM. They actually went that route in the draft with Rogers, and with a trade for Farve while they had a very good PB in Majkowski(sp?). It paid off for super bowls both times.

I'm going to have to watch Barkley more this season. Opinions seems to be completely varying on him. While I only watched the first half of the USC game on Saturday, he was quite impressive. He made all the throws and reads with 1,3,5,and 7 step drops, and his accuracy was dead on.

Im hesitant to be that high in Barkley. USC is know for pumping out system QB's and while Sanchez look pretty good Leinart and Cassell are mediocre at best.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:14 PM

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:15 PM

Im hesitant to be that high in Barkley. USC is know for pumping out system QB's and while Sanchez look pretty good Leinart and Cassell are mediocre at best.

and I don't think Cassel is anything better than Sanchez. I'm right with you on Barkley. I don't want anything to do with him.....except for the matter that Barkley is coming from a different USC than the other three did.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:17 PM

True but he still would have been a Free Agent after this season.

I wasn't trying to state my opinion as fact or anything. I just felt that could have been plausible.

of course. I agree, Orton is gone after the year. He doesn't want to be here, and the fans absolutely don't want him here.

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 02:18 PM

When was the last time we gave someone a decent signing bonus?

Do you remember Elway suggesting that if there was no rookie cap the Broncos would probably trade the #2 pick?

The Broncos have three coaches on the payroll.

Dumervil got a huge contract which surprised many around football. $40 mill guaranteed, if memory serves, and its still one of the largest in the league, especially non-Quarterback.

And, no, to the second question.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:20 PM

Why would the Dolphins agree to a one year deal? If you're referring to a two or 3 year deal for Kyle, then why would Kyle agree to that?

Why would Kyle agree to a longer term deal that guaranteed him the same amount he's making here, now, and gives him more for future seasons? Why wouldn't he? He knows he's not going to be in Denver next season, why wouldn't he go to a different team for the same amount of guaranteed money and new opportunities? You think he's going to get more than a 3 year deal elsewhere?

It was financially beneficial for him to stay with Denver this season. People want to gripe and complain that Kyle is a "me" kind of guy, but why should he take LESS money than he was absolutely guaranteed to make right NOW? I wouldn't do that...especially when we are talking millions.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:21 PM

Not to mention, MOST teams have tried to trade out of the top 5 picks for years now. Not exactly shocking to see us thinking of moving from the top 2.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:24 PM

Why would Kyle agree to a longer term deal that guaranteed him the same amount he's making here, now, and gives him more for future seasons? Why wouldn't he? He knows he's not going to be in Denver next season, why wouldn't he go to a different team for the same amount of guaranteed money and new opportunities? You think he's going to get more than a 3 year deal elsewhere?

It was financially beneficial for him to stay with Denver this season. People want to gripe and complain that Kyle is a "me" kind of guy, but why should he take LESS money than he was absolutely guaranteed to make right NOW? I wouldn't do that...especially when we are talking millions.

I agree....I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I wouldn't take a two year deal that guaranteed me $9million if I knew I could stay where I'm at and make the same, then hit the FA market in 10 months and make even more.

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 02:26 PM

I think Shanahan is off our payroll after last season, isn't he?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:27 PM

The Broncos have three coaches on the payroll.

Dumervil got a huge contract which surprised many around football. $40 mill guaranteed, if memory serves, and its still one of the largest in the league, especially non-Quarterback.

And, no, to the second question.

and even with all of the guaranteed money we're giving Elvis and Champ this year we are still in the bottom third of the league in payroll.

The FO needs to do what it can to at least retain a few superstars.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:29 PM

I think Shanahan is off our payroll after last season, isn't he?

I believe so...I don't believe hiring Fox proves anything about Bowlen's cash flow. Spending another 2 million on a head coach is nothing compared to what he's saving in player salaries.

Joe Ellis understands this; could it be that's why the much maligned Joe Ellis still has a job? He's not a football guy. He's a business manager, yet he has more power in the organization than Elway....why is that?

swaiy

09-06-2011, 02:29 PM

Clady is going to want one doozy of a contract...

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 02:31 PM

Clady is going to want one doozy of a contract...

Yes he is..............

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 02:36 PM

and even with all of the guaranteed money we're giving Elvis and Champ this year we are still in the bottom third of the league in payroll.

The FO needs to do what it can to at least retain a few superstars.

They were 20th in payroll last year, and have been top half for some time. Even if that falls even lower this year, it doesn't provide proof that there are cash flow problems, it just shows they aren't spending as much money as other teams. Chiefs payroll has been very low. Clark Hunt doesn't have any money problems.

BigDaddyBronco

09-06-2011, 02:42 PM

We are in a recession after all...

Tned

09-06-2011, 02:43 PM

Unfortuantely, even though the world of tweeting is a nice way to update people on current events it is just far too vague.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but when it comes to certain aspects of sports reporting it is by far the least vague forms of reporting. Training camp updates being the number one example.

But when i talk about having a fair competition i do mean equal amount of snaps. I dont care if Tebow took the snaps when Orton was with his kid, the starting position was already determined by then.

Yes, I never said that the snaps while Mrs. Orton was popping out the kid was part of the competition, but instead that by that time, Orton was getting all of the first team reps, except for that one practice.

What im concerned with is how many he took outside of just a couple of snaps or when Orton was absent. The thing is, you (at least on the surface) posted what you did as some sort of validation that the QB's all took the same amount of time with the starters. If i misread into that im sorry.

I don't think I posted ANYTHING that said they got the same amount of snaps, nor insinuated it was a 'fair' (if that word should even enter the conversation) competition. It was clear from very early on that Orton was the front runner and another QB was going to have play "against the odds" so to speak, to unseat him.

As to the reps, I asked Lindsay Jones, and this was her response:

RT @PostBroncos: @BroncosForums @maxbroncos IIRC, the 1st week, all 3 got 1st-team reps. By wk 2, Orton got all the first reps and TT + BQ split the 2s.

But at the end of the day there was no "true" competition here. The team could of only gone one of two ways this year. Either claim it as a true rebuild like Carolina, St. Louis, Detroit, etc or have the belief they are a contender. Judging by the experience of Orton compared to the other two and judging by Fox's comments as too "Orton gives us the best chance to win now" i would say he is claiming we have a shot at the playoffs.

My personal position on this all along has been that if Fox thinks we can win now, then I can see a strong argument for starting Orton. If they see no realistic shot at the playoffs, and this is in fact a rebuilding year (whether stated publicly by the Broncos or not), the only thing that makes sense to me is to start Tebow.

While I have no real problem with the backup QBs getting limited to no first team snaps in practice, I do think during the early preseason games (specifically, games two and three), both Quinn and Tebow should have gotten at least 2-3 series behind the starting line. Yes, that is a slight risk for the starting O-line, which has virtually nobody behind them in case of injury, but it was not a valid evaluation of the QBs without those series. Quinn did get a couple from what I remember, Tebow got none.

Tned

09-06-2011, 02:49 PM

As to the reps, I asked Lindsay Jones, and this was her response:

As to a followup on this, Andrew Mason has now responded to my question:

RT @MaxBroncos: @PostBroncos @BroncosForums All 3 did in 1st week; balance was definitely toward Orton even then. After that, Orton w/ 1's, BQ/TT split 2's

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 03:06 PM

They were 20th in payroll last year, and have been top half for some time. Even if that falls even lower this year, it doesn't provide proof that there are cash flow problems, it just shows they aren't spending as much money as other teams. Chiefs payroll has been very low. Clark Hunt doesn't have any money problems.

No, we haven't been in the top half. We have been top ten in revenue for quite some time.

In both 09' and 10' we were in the bottom five in player spending. This year we are atleast in the bottom ten.

weazel

09-06-2011, 03:37 PM

On average, an Ostrich weighs 350 pounds and stands 9 feet tall!

dogfish

09-06-2011, 04:30 PM

On average, an Ostrich weighs 350 pounds and stands 9 feet tall!

and looks ridiculous with its head buried in the sand. . . .

:heh:

Northman

09-06-2011, 04:38 PM

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but when it comes to certain aspects of sports reporting it is by far the least vague forms of reporting. Training camp updates being the number one example.

What i mean is you dont have a lot of room to add any info. You have to be brief and to the point as possible, hence vague. Its not anyone's fault just how twitter is set up.

As to the reps, I asked Lindsay Jones, and this was her response:

So basically, virtually nothing. But at least you got some clarification on it. Bravo.

My personal position on this all along has been that if Fox thinks we can win now, then I can see a strong argument for starting Orton. If they see no realistic shot at the playoffs, and this is in fact a rebuilding year (whether stated publicly by the Broncos or not), the only thing that makes sense to me is to start Tebow.

Agreed, however i disagree with Fox if he thinks we can be a contender now. Too many question marks.

While I have no real problem with the backup QBs getting limited to no first team snaps in practice, I do think during the early preseason games (specifically, games two and three), both Quinn and Tebow should have gotten at least 2-3 series behind the starting line. Yes, that is a slight risk for the starting O-line, which has virtually nobody behind them in case of injury, but it was not a valid evaluation of the QBs without those series. Quinn did get a couple from what I remember, Tebow got none.

Totally agree.

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 04:38 PM

No, we haven't been in the top half. We have been top ten in revenue for quite some time.

In both 09' and 10' we were in the bottom five in player spending. This year we are atleast in the bottom ten.

So, wait...

Denver is supposedly bottom five in player spending (Don't know where that number is coming from, because USA Today has Denver 20th, but let's roll with it anyway).

Denver is also top ten in revenue.

Denver also doesn't give out big signing bonuses...

If revenue is up and expenditures are down, how can you have a cash flow problem?

SOCALORADO.

09-06-2011, 04:59 PM

So, wait...

Denver is supposedly bottom five in player spending (Don't know where that number is coming from, because USA Today has Denver 20th, but let's roll with it anyway).

Denver is also top ten in revenue.

Denver also doesn't give out big signing bonuses...

If revenue is up and expenditures are down, how can you have a cash flow problem?

DEN doesnt have a ca$h flow problem.
DEN has a QB problem.
Next year, DEN will do whatever it takes to move up and get Luck.
DEN will be active in FA next year to supplant the loss of draft picks.
There. Now you know the plan. :listen:

Tned

09-06-2011, 05:12 PM

What i mean is you dont have a lot of room to add any info. You have to be brief and to the point as possible, hence vague. Its not anyone's fault just how twitter is set up.

Gotcha.

So basically, virtually nothing. But at least you got some clarification on it. Bravo.

Agreed, however i disagree with Fox if he thinks we can be a contender now. Too many question marks.

Totally agree.

That's what I was thinking, that they all got some first team reps early, but pretty quickly, Orton got all of them, and based on all reports, it was because Orton was head and shoulders above the other two. Not too surprising, he's the most polished vet of the trio.

Also, I got confirmation from Andrew Mason that during the 7 on 7's, there is no pressure on the QB, no DL.

Jsteve01

09-06-2011, 07:09 PM

That doesn't hold water. Ellis and Bowlen knew they were losing the fans. Besides that, they're only paying Fox about $2 million this year. How does that compare to the number they are under the cap?

This is what I keep dealing with when I cite reasons to believe Bowlen has become a penny pincher. People just dismiss it with a tongue in cheek comment.

When was the last time we gave someone a decent signing bonus?

Do you remember Elway suggesting that if there was no rookie cap the Broncos would probably trade the #2 pick?

There is plenty of evidence the Broncos have cash flow issues. Even back when the team was winning in the late 90's what did Bowlen get in trouble for? He got in trouble for deferring money to players which violated the CAP. He did that for cash flow reasons. Apparently, since the real estate bubble burst those issues have compounded.

Champ and Dooms both got nice signing bonuses. And a big Mr Clady is due one next year.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 07:24 PM

I keep hearing that Pat Bowlen is in real estate - where is the evidence that he is in real estate?

Tned

09-06-2011, 07:27 PM

I keep hearing that Pat Bowlen is in real estate - where is the evidence that he is in real estate?

Wiki

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 07:55 PM

Wiki

If we are going on Wiki, there is more than just real estate listed, and it does not state that he is still in real estate.

Pat's father, Paul D. Bowlen, became a millionaire in the Canadian oil business, founding Regent Drilling as a wildcatter. Bowlen attended the University of Oklahoma and earned degrees in business (1965) and law (1968). The younger Bowlen became wealthy in his own right by becoming a successful lawyer in Edmonton, Alberta. He also worked as an executive for his father's company and as a real estate developer and had major investments in the mining industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Bowlen

also -

Patrick Dennis Bowlen (born February 18, 1944 in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin) is the Majority Owner, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Denver Broncos. The Bowlen Family, including his two brothers and sister, purchased the team from Edgar Kaiser in 1984 and saved the team from possible bankruptcy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Bowl

09-06-2011, 08:05 PM

I taught Clay everything he knows about Occams Razor :coffee:

That said, such a dick move is not unprecedented. Bill Bidwell ordered Boomer Esiason benched some years back to avoid having to pay a performance bonus of @ $500,000. Esiason had signed an incentive heavy contract near the end of his career as a backup and ended up starting - and quite well too. Bidwell was willing to tank games to avoid paying Esiason that comparativelyy small amount (NB, any wonder the Cards are usually uncompetitive?)

Now, Bill Bidwell is also a douchenozzle of near cosmic proportion, something I would never accuse Bowlen of being...but, heavy financial stress can make people do shabby things. I don't think for a moment that there was a "fair" competition, but I doubt this is the reason. My own sense is its Fox's innate conservatism at play here. Orton sucks, but in a more generally familiar way to Fox. He simply doesn't know what to make of Tebow, and he'll only find out when his hand is forced by injury or ineptitude, which are both well within Orton's grasp.

Bidwell was a joke of an owner. Having lived in Phoenix most of my life and seeing how he dismantled the Cardinals and shunned their fan base year after year, I would never ever even come close to accusing Bowlen of doing anything close to what Bill Bidwell did to the Cardinals. What he did to Boomer, Garrison Hearst, etc, made me and other fans of the team sick. Suggesting Bowlen would do something on that level is also sickening.

dogfish

09-06-2011, 08:07 PM

Champ and Dooms both got nice signing bonuses. And a big Mr Clady is due one next year.

dumervil's signing bonus was three million dollars. . . nothing i'd sneeze at, but it's NFL chump change. . .

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/denver-broncos/elvis-dumervil/

champ did not receive any signing bonus. . . .

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/denver-broncos/champ-bailey/

09-06-2011, 08:09 PM

Don't even bother explaining to him. If people can't get it on their own, it's doubtful you'll be able to explain it to them.

I like how you pick and choose what people say in their posts and use only certain parts to support your unproven opinions.

09-06-2011, 08:13 PM

09-06-2011, 08:27 PM

I can't keep reading this thread. When I left it last night it was a half dozen pages. Now it's 15. I made it to page nine and quit.

Lancane

09-06-2011, 08:46 PM

Lots of here say, zero fact aside from the part about being unable to pay debts and creditors lining up to take your shit from you. The rest of it is "here's what could happen if this might happen" type stuff. Again.

There has been facts stated that some have disregarded though, such as the fact that they're losing 150 million in annual projected earnings from the lack of luxury and box seat sales. There has likewise been a fall in merchandise sales, which started to fall rapidly from the third quarter of 2009 and continued to fall up through the first quarter of 2011, it wasn't until we hired Fox that merchandise sale began to pick up a little, even with the high amount of Tebow jersey sales which tells us that other team merchandise had a huge drop off. The team has an accumulated overhead which is a little over two million, that includes their debt ceiling at about 15%, the teams overall income as of 2010 was 250 million, which leaves a difference of 49 million or round about there. The loss of the projected 150 million annually has effected the team, it was a major reasoning factor in the construction of the new stadium. We haven't had a winning season since 2005, the continuation of losing and mediocre seasons has cost the Broncos in not only merchandise because the loss of exposure but also the loss of revenue from playoff berths which increases the gross revenue of teams dramatically - something we we're not use to at the time the stadium was built, since 1980 the Denver Broncos not only continually had playoff berths and national exposure due to being such a successful franchise, but were one of the top professional sports teams in regards to merchandise sales which soon was effected after Elway retired and started losing more then winning, though sales picked up during the 2005 season and in 2006 when we drafted Cutler, the gross intake from merchandise leveled out until 2009 under McDaniels.

Agent of Orange

09-06-2011, 09:05 PM

Lots of here say, zero fact aside

What does this even mean? Please tell me its not the same tired bullshit about me having a greater burden than you. That was debunked yesterday.

from the part about being unable to pay debts and creditors lining up to take your shit from you. The rest of it is "here's what could happen if this might happen" type stuff. Again.

No, the part about creditors is about what could happen also. Glad you came along to not sniff that one out...oh wait, you didn't.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 09:22 PM

In regards to merchandise sales - this is the latest I can find - if it is true, what is sold is put in a bucket, and shared by all teams:

In a good year, a typical NFL team makes about $5 million off merchandise sales, which worldwide totaled $3.2 billion in 2006. However, because of a wacky economic scheme, the teams don’t benefit all that much, sharing only about 12% of the wholesale price of an item. So, based on that number, when a superstar’s jersey is sold, each team gets 11 cents a piece.

http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html

another older article:

The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57668-2005Jan7?language=printer

AND a 2008 article

That's why owner Jerry Jones pulled the team out of the NFL's merchandise revenue-sharing agreement several years ago--the Cowboys are the only team in the league that keeps all of its merchandise money, while all the others share equally.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/11/nfl-apparel-marketing-biz-cx_tvr_1212jerseys.html

Unless someone else can find something more current, and something that states that each team now gets the profit on the merchandise sales of their team, we can put to bed the talk that Bowlen is in trouble because the Broncos' merchandise sales have fallen, and we can also put to bed that the Broncos are keeping Tebow for his merchandise sales.

hamrob

09-06-2011, 09:48 PM

What factual evidence do you have to the contrary? Like I said, there have been numerous instances that point to Bowlen having money problems over the past few years.

In spite of your denial, it seems that you very much are taking a head in the sand or pollyanna-ish view.I'm getting in on this discussion late, but I think it's idiotic to think that Bowlen isn't having cash trouble.

The Broncos were the 2nd worst team in the NFL last year....that's bottom of the barrel. Then, we had the lockout take place. This set up the biggest free agent storm that the league has seen in years.

What did the Broncos do to improve themselves? Nothing. As we stand today, we are $25m under the CAP. If Bowlen wasn't having cash problems...why didn't we spend a little bit of that huge pile of money on players that could help us win football games???

Why is it, that we didn't sign players cut from other teams...until they cleared waivers? So, that they would be cheaper....and it didn't matter if we lost out on guys, because other teams signed them. They were willing to lose them...over a few bucks.

It's all about money. Bowlen doesn't have it. And, you have to be a blind fool to think otherwise!!!

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 10:03 PM

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 10:04 PM

I'm getting in on this discussion late, but I think it's idiotic to think that Bowlen isn't having cash trouble.

The Broncos were the 2nd worst team in the NFL last year....that's bottom of the barrel. Then, we had the lockout take place. This set up the biggest free agent storm that the league has seen in years.

What did the Broncos do to improve themselves? Nothing. As we stand today, we are $25m under the CAP. If Bowlen wasn't having cash problems...why didn't we spend a little bit of that huge pile of money on players that could help us win football games???

Why is it, that we didn't sign players cut from other teams...until they cleared waivers? So, that they would be cheaper....and it didn't matter if we lost out on guys, because other teams signed them. They were willing to lose them...over a few bucks.

It's all about money. Bowlen doesn't have it. And, you have to be a blind fool to think otherwise!!!

The Broncos personnel staff had studied up on about 900 players in advance of the NFL’s major cut day on Saturday. When the time came to submit waiver claims, though, the Broncos did not submit a single one, despite having the No. 2 spot in the claim order, behind only the Carolina Panthers.

Head coach John Fox said that the Broncos staff looked at the players available Saturday afternoon to see if any might be better than players near the bottom of their own roster.

“There were only a few guys that we even had interest in and then at the end of the day it wasn’t enough interest to re-train a guy over a guy that’s had five weeks of training in our system on offense, defense or special teams,” head coach John Fox said.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2011/09/05/fox-team-preferred-own-guys-to-those-on-waiver-wire/9314/

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 10:23 PM

The Chief's Lamar Hunt doesn't have cash problems, yet they are just as much under the cap as we are. They didn't spend much in this giant "fa frenzy." So I'm going to assume the rumors are going to start that the Hunt family is now having cash flow problems purely based on the fact that they are under the cap??

You have to be a damned fool to think that the FA's and cap space proves a damn thing.

I didn't say it "proved anything". I've been suggesting for a year that there are several signs pointing to the idea Bowlen "might" have cash flow troubles. Every time I bring it up I get flamed for it.

I'm not the only one to suggest it. There have been articles written about it too.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 10:36 PM

If Bowlen has cash flow problems - I wonder how he can afford to pay everyone working for him, besides the players?

STAFF DIRECTORY

http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/staff-directory.html

chazoe60

09-06-2011, 10:44 PM

Cash flow problems or no cash flow problems $20Mil under the cap and pathetic depth spells CHEAP.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-06-2011, 10:50 PM

Haha, I love your bluntness buddy.

Agent of Orange

09-06-2011, 10:52 PM

Ravage!!!

09-06-2011, 11:05 PM

I didn't say it "proved anything". I've been suggesting for a year that there are several signs pointing to the idea Bowlen "might" have cash flow troubles. Every time I bring it up I get flamed for it.

I'm not the only one to suggest it. There have been articles written about it too.

I haven't seen anyone flame you for it. I've also seen a couple try to use these articles as "proof" that there are signs. However, even the poster that tries to use these articles has had to recognize (and say) that they are nothing more than rumors. So I find it interesting that you guys want to continue to use rumors as your source of information and "proof" that Bowlen has cash flow problems. To the point that you are using such as the signings, or non-signings of FAs and cap-space for your facts of proof.

Every "sign" that you point out, has many different answers to it... you just choose the ones that seem to fit your point. You only accept the single path that meets your vision, and ignore the others.

Personally, I think its a silly assumption to make, especially... ESPECIALLY... to base it off of FA signings and the amount of cap space. The NFL is a business, always has been. Funny how quickly and easily the fans are willing to spend the money when they aren't responsible for it.

Call it cheap if you want... but it seems to me that you are talking about Billionairs dealing in multi-multi MILLIONS of dollars...... and YOU Guys are giving the advice and making judgements? I find that humorous.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-06-2011, 11:05 PM

There are so many different articles out in regards to the Broncos' salary cap - here is another one dated July 19th:

By Bill Williamson
We won’t know exactly what the salary cap situation for each team will be until the new collective bargaining agreement is set. But we do have a sense of what range each team is in. ESPN’s John Clayton reported that the new salary cap will be $120 million. Each team could use a $3 million exemption. The numbers do not reflect tender numbers that have not been officially set yet.

Denver

Salary-cap range: $770,000 under.

Summary: The Broncos have work to do in free agency, so they will have to rework some contracts of some older players including safety Brian Dawkins. Trading quarterback Kyle Orton would also help.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/28951/salary-cap-breakdown

As we all know - Dawkins did rework his contract

BeefStew25

09-06-2011, 11:05 PM

The days of spending money for the sake of spending money are over, and frankly, that makes me happy.

Put it this way: I didn't see a 16 page thread on the horrible signing of Jarvis Green.

Action isn't always a good thing. Build from the draft, let young guys get reps, and sprinkle free agents in as needed.

I like what EFX is doing. We don't need a spending freak out. We have been down that road, and it is immature and gay.

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 11:29 PM

The Chief's Lamar Hunt doesn't have cash problems, yet they are just as much under the cap as we are. They didn't spend much in this giant "fa frenzy." So I'm going to assume the rumors are going to start that the Hunt family is now having cash flow problems purely based on the fact that they are under the cap??

You have to be a damned fool to think that the FA's and cap space proves a damn thing.

I 100 percent agree...but Lamar is dead, so he has no real money problems...

:couch:

BeefStew25

09-06-2011, 11:33 PM

So Lamar is having blood flow issues?

MOtorboat

09-06-2011, 11:37 PM

So Lamar is having blood flow issues?

That's better than seat belt issues, I guess.

MOtorboat

09-07-2011, 12:29 AM

Agent of Orange

09-07-2011, 12:51 AM

Payroll has very little to do with actual cash flow.

Pittsburgh and New England were both bottom five in 2009 in payroll.

Are they struggling with cash flow?

The two have virtually no corralation.

There's a difference between a team's cash flow and an owners cash flow. If an owner is struggling financially, it can easily affect how he runs the team, even if the team itself is doing OK.

Lancane

09-07-2011, 12:56 AM

If Bowlen has cash flow problems - I wonder how he can afford to pay everyone working for him, besides the players?

STAFF DIRECTORY

http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/staff-directory.html

The Broncos in 2010 brought in 250 million, with a value change of about -3%, player expenses was 142 million, debt value was 14% with operations costing about 22 million - that includes the pay for internal and football staffs because it's not covered under the salary cap and has to be paid out of the remaining cash flow after paying all debts, operations and personnel.

BeefStew25

09-07-2011, 08:10 AM

There's a difference between a team's cash flow and an owners cash flow. If an owner is struggling financially, it can easily affect how he runs the team, even if the team itself is doing OK.

Agree. It is like when Kansas City would skim off the top at the Algiers and Al Pacino would look the other way. Rob Peter to pay another pocket in your pants I think is how the saying goes.

BeefStew25

09-07-2011, 08:14 AM

Cash flow problems or no cash flow problems $20Mil under the cap and pathetic depth spells CHEAP.

This post really bugs me.

So if we spend less money than last year on player payroll, but win more games, wouldn't that be good?

Would you spazz out if we got into bidding wars on average free agents? Why are they free agents?

TXBRONC

09-07-2011, 08:44 AM

BeefStew25

09-07-2011, 08:45 AM

If I'm not mistaken every team has to use at minimum 90 some odd percent of their cap space according to the new CBA.

Not this year. This year is a straight up cash call.

chazoe60

09-07-2011, 08:48 AM

This post really bugs me.

So if we spend less money than last year on player payroll, but win more games, wouldn't that be good?

Would you spazz out if we got into bidding wars on average free agents? Why are they free agents?

I'm not upset that we didn't break the bank for average FAs, I don't like the fact that the majority of our backups are horrible. Our 2nd team OL is ridiculously bad. I don't know that any of them belong in the NFL.
To me being $20mil under the cap and not having a viable buckuo OLineman, is cheap. You know who else is really far under the cap? The Bengals. When the Cards were in the midst of their 40+ year playoff win drought they were always among the lowest payrolls. I just don't want to see the Broncos ending up like one of those franchises.

When we won our SBs we spent right up to the cap, even went over ;).

BeefStew25

09-07-2011, 08:54 AM

I'm not upset that we didn't break the bank for average FAs, I don't like the fact that the majority of our backups are horrible. Our 2nd team OL is ridiculously bad. I don't know that any of them belong in the NFL.
To me being $20mil under the cap and not having a viable buckuo OLineman, is cheap. You know who else is really far under the cap? The Bengals. When the Cards were in the midst of their 40+ year playoff win drought they were always among the lowest payrolls. I just don't want to see the Broncos ending up like one of those franchises.

When we won our SBs we spent right up to the cap, even went over ;).

Be patient. After week 1 I bet we do some other things.

Go in and ask your boss to guarantee your salary for a year.

chazoe60

09-07-2011, 09:03 AM

Be patient. After week 1 I bet we do some other things.

Go in and ask your boss to guarantee your salary for a year.

I'm union, my salary bisically is guaranteed. You havs to practically kill someone to get fired at my company.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor

09-07-2011, 10:34 AM

I haven't seen anyone flame you for it. I've also seen a couple try to use these articles as "proof" that there are signs. However, even the poster that tries to use these articles has had to recognize (and say) that they are nothing more than rumors. So I find it interesting that you guys want to continue to use rumors as your source of information and "proof" that Bowlen has cash flow problems. To the point that you are using such as the signings, or non-signings of FAs and cap-space for your facts of proof.

Every "sign" that you point out, has many different answers to it... you just choose the ones that seem to fit your point. You only accept the single path that meets your vision, and ignore the others.

Personally, I think its a silly assumption to make, especially... ESPECIALLY... to base it off of FA signings and the amount of cap space. The NFL is a business, always has been. Funny how quickly and easily the fans are willing to spend the money when they aren't responsible for it.

Call it cheap if you want... but it seems to me that you are talking about Billionairs dealing in multi-multi MILLIONS of dollars...... and YOU Guys are giving the advice and making judgements? I find that humorous.

I honestly don't know if he does have cash flow problems. My point is that I am not dismissing the rumors that he "may" have cash flow problems. I've seen them go the cheap route for 4 years running now with FA's.

You may think it's silly Ravage, but I also think it's silly to dismiss it as not being possible.

BeefStew25

09-07-2011, 04:14 PM

I'm union, my salary bisically is guaranteed. You havs to practically kill someone to get fired at my company.

Oh. Well, thanks for the recession.

09-07-2011, 07:58 PM

Well, there are a lot of blind members posting in this thread.

How the hell is it that you're so much more enlightened than the rest of us and are absolutely entitled to have your own opinion, but when other people have their own opinion that just so happens to differ from yours they're "blind" and have their "head in the sand"? Last time I checked, pal, this was ******* America and we're all allowed to have our opinions without reprisal. So why do you think you're in a position to belittle everyone and talk down to everyone with a different opinion than your own?

Absolutely NOTHING you have said in this thread is concrete or factual. It's based on other articles that are speculative in their own right. I can't stand people that think they're better than everyone else. I'm sure this post will be edited or deleted, but I'm saying pretty much the same thing pretty much everyone else in this thread is thinking.

09-07-2011, 08:02 PM

If I'm not mistaken every team has to use at minimum 90 some odd percent of their cap space according to the new CBA.

I've read online that they structured that part of the new CBA after the NHL CBA that was reconstructed in 2005. It's a smart move because it forces teams that ordinarily wouldn't spend money to spend money in an effort to reduce league parity and increase competition.

09-07-2011, 08:04 PM

I'm union, my salary bisically is guaranteed. You havs to practically kill someone to get fired at my company.

One of the benefits to being in the military is that unless I severely **** up, which I won't, my salary is pretty much guaranteed. However, my salary was recently in jeopardy, but we won't go there.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-07-2011, 08:08 PM

This article is dated today - September 7, 2011

from article:

Altogether, 15 teams are worth $1 billion; the others are Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Green Bay, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Denver, Pittsburgh, Miami and Carolina.

full article - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6941473/dallas-cowboys-most-valuable-nfl-team-forbes-list

Lancane

09-07-2011, 08:24 PM

This article is dated today - September 7, 2011

from article:

full article - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6941473/dallas-cowboys-most-valuable-nfl-team-forbes-list

I've already stated that Denver is worth over a billion actually several times Carol...the net worth of the franchise is not the issue, it really doesn't pertain to the discussion at hand other then just because it's the net worth doesn't mean they have a cash flow that resembles the franchise's overall value. Like I said, Bowlen has lost projected income annually since 2001, when the new stadium was completed - the luxury and box seats which were projected to bring in a huge portion of the overall annual income have not been doing well, in fact they are losing out on a 150 million annually because of it and that's not chump change, Bowlen is only making about 39 to 49 million a year, when he should be making closer to 200.

Denver Native (Carol)

09-07-2011, 08:31 PM

this article was written on August 26, 2010

The latest ranks the Broncos as No. 8 among NFL teams with $250 million in 2009 revenue and 10th in franchise value at $1.049 billion.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/08/26/forbes-broncos-no-8-in-revenue/4758/

Lancane

09-07-2011, 08:48 PM

this article was written on August 26, 2010

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/08/26/forbes-broncos-no-8-in-revenue/4758/

I don't think you understand Carol, that 250 million covers their ceiling debt, meaning their overall bills for running the franchise, such as player personnel which was in 2010 142 million which is probably a little less this year, another 22 million in operations which includes all staff, practice facility upkeep, equipment, etc. Another 14% in debt value, so close to 37 million, they don't give a complete breakdown of creditors for which the debts are owed, fair enough to state that includes investors and so on. When that's all said and done, there is about 49 million left over, which should be much, much higher...the luxury and box seats are not garnering the fiscal intake as projected which is an additional 150 million. We also have to remember that Pat Bowlen only owns 65.7% of the overall stock, his brothers and sisters own some stock, Kaiser still owns a little bit of the stock, not sure who all the investors are but I would bet that most of the Board of Directors own some as well that includes beyond Pat, John Bowlen, Bob Masten, Fred Hemmings, Jeff Harmon, Bill Britton and Tim Guard. So the overall net worth of the franchise isn't a representation of Mr. Bowlen's overall worth either.

09-07-2011, 08:51 PM

I've already stated that Denver is worth over a billion actually several times Carol...the net worth of the franchise is not the issue, it really doesn't pertain to the discussion at hand other then just because it's the net worth doesn't mean they have a cash flow that resembles the franchise's overall value. Like I said, Bowlen has lost projected income annually since 2001, when the new stadium was completed - the luxury and box seats which were projected to bring in a huge portion of the overall annual income have not been doing well, in fact they are losing out on a 150 million annually because of it and that's not chump change, Bowlen is only making about 39 to 49 million a year, when he should be making closer to 200.

He's not really "losing" money because of those boxes though. He's not gaining from them, but those luxury boxes not selling isn't costing him any extra...it's just not gaining him any revenue.