PDA

View Full Version : Ty Warren not on board with Broncos’ request to cut his pay



DenBronx
05-13-2012, 12:59 PM
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 13, 2012, 1:38 PM EDT

The Broncos and Ty Warren are not seeing eye to eye on the team’s attempt to cut the veteran defensive lineman’s salary.

Warren is scheduled to make $4 million this year, in the second half of the two-year, $8 million contract he signed with the team last season. Mike Klis of the Denver Post reports that the Broncos approached Warren about taking a pay cut to something in the range of $1 million or $1.5 million, and that Warren balked.

READ FULL ARTICLE:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/13/ty-warren-not-on-board-with-broncos-request-to-cut-his-pay/

Northman
05-13-2012, 01:00 PM
He should be, he hasnt even earned a penny with this team yet.

DenBronx
05-13-2012, 01:04 PM
He hasnt earned jack but I hope he does restructure.

DenBronx
05-13-2012, 01:41 PM
So Vickerson, who actually played, will take a pay cut but Ty Warren will not? Looks like someone needs to find gravity and come back down to earth.

broncobryce
05-13-2012, 01:57 PM
It would suck to be asked to give up 3 million, but he won't even make 1 million if we cut him. I doubt anyone is looking for a DT who hasn't played in 2 seasons. He would get league minimum at best IMO.

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 01:59 PM
It's pretty much official at this point, imo, the Broncos don't think any better about their core of DT's than we do. The Broncos must not put a lot of weight in the position, they've lowballed (if you wanna call it that) their '11 starters, had one take a paycut and would like a 4th to take a paycut. If the Broncos had better players at the position Warren would have no choice but the Broncos are so bad at DT that a 30+ year old DT coming off 2 straight season ending injuries has all the leverage.

Do they really have anything to lose by cutting him? We're not talking about Ndomakong Suh here. Cut him and let the market set his value. Thomas is still available.......

EMB6903
05-13-2012, 02:07 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...

Davii
05-13-2012, 02:15 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...

Depends. Were I sitting on millions, and making millions, probably. Would I take a 75% pay cut... No way in hell. Would I take a million off for not having played a down while making 4 million last year? Maybe.

I don't know Warrens financial position, but if he wants to make more money next year and maybe a couple after that it would make sense to deal with your current employer..

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 02:16 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...
The question isn't whether I'd take a paycut, the question is whether I'd take a paycut knowing nobody else would come close to what I was making.......

Northman
05-13-2012, 02:16 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...



Depends. If i knew i wasnt carrying my weight and knew it would help the team down the road trying to win a championship i would certainly consider it. Its all just a matter of character really. Is Ty just in it for him or is he a team player? It can differ from player to player.

Ziggy
05-13-2012, 02:44 PM
Abruyo Franklin would probably come in and play for the veteran minimum at this point. I don't think the Broncos can cut Warren unless they sign someone else, or someone emerges in camp.

DenBronx
05-13-2012, 02:46 PM
Derek Wolfe doesnt give a shit. He would eat anyone that gets in his way if he had to.

BORDERLINE
05-13-2012, 02:47 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...

I'm on board with ya.

The NFL is a business. And if his contract says PAY THE MAN then Pay the MAN. If He takes a Pay Cut GREAT (dumb move on his part) but since he hasn't played in 2 yrs WHY TAKE A CHANCE?

And NOBODY is in his shoes so no one can say they would do it differently. Frankly, if Denver doesn't want to keep him then CUT his azz. And sign a hungry young kid to come in and contribute.

ShaneFalco
05-13-2012, 02:56 PM
Would any of you take a paycut?

Let's be real here...
i would play for min. salary.

on the other hand. Broncos have about 15m cap leftover right?

topscribe
05-13-2012, 02:57 PM
Depends. If i knew i wasnt carrying my weight and knew it would help the team down the road trying to win a championship i would certainly consider it. Its all just a matter of character really. Is Ty just in it for him or is he a team player? It can differ from player to player.
I agree with you, kind of. I also agree with Davii that I would never
take a 75% cut. But lop off a million, then go out and show them
I am worth a raise next year? That might sound reasonable to me,
but then, that's just me . . .

Joel
05-13-2012, 03:00 PM
Depends. If i knew i wasnt carrying my weight and knew it would help the team down the road trying to win a championship i would certainly consider it. Its all just a matter of character really. Is Ty just in it for him or is he a team player? It can differ from player to player.
Not that I disagree, but players like that are the exception rather than the rule, particularly since the NFL has become increasingly mercenary over the last decade or two. Rod did it the season before he retired, and the most stunning example is Aikman restructuring a contract only a year old so the '93 Cowboys could re-sign Emmitt (who held out through the first two regular season games, solely because Thurman Thomas had just signed a contract making him the NFLs highest paid back,) but I can't think of many other examples.

Given his injury (and thus playing) history, I would be surprised if Warren isn't open to ANY restructuring, but giving up 75% of the last money Denver owes him is a BIG sacrifice with few seasons left in his battered body. I don't know how much would count against our cap if we released him, but he DOES have a legally binding contract for this season, so he might make more that way than by taking a 75% pay cut.

Regardless, he's probably the best or second best DT on our roster now (depressing as that is) and thus probably does have most of the leverage here. It might be different if we'd drafted a legit NT instead of a solid UT (the same mistake we made with Marcus Thomas a few years ago) but we didn't, so we need a reliable clogger in the middle to prevent Jamal Charles and Darren McFadden running up the gut for 20 yards every down (and that's just within the Division; anyone want to face Arian Foster, Ben Tate and their line with the DT scrubs we have MINUS Warren?)

It's too bad, really; with our quality at Will, Miller at Sam, Doom and Ayers at DE and the mass of good CBs we just added, our defense could be truly dominant if there were ANYTHING at its core. Instead, we're scrambling to find even enough good DTs to start, our Mike can't cover and our safeties are a mess. Hopefully we find the Mike and DT next year ('cos I don't expect to have Manning after that,) and all the newly acquired CBs, plus continued development from Harris, allow Champ to play FS as he continues slowing. I wish our offense were as talented; the D actually has few holes, but, unfortunately, each is at a critical spot.

DenBronx
05-13-2012, 03:01 PM
Why not just restructure it from a guaranteed contract to one with incentives? You want the 4 mill Warren? Ok, then go out there and show us you can stay healthy and EARN the 4 mill.

Northman
05-13-2012, 03:02 PM
Why not just restructure it from a guaranteed contract to one with incentives? You want the 4 mill Warren? Ok, then go out there and show us you can stay healthy and EARN the 4 mill.

Because its easier to take money when you dont actually have to play.

Joel
05-13-2012, 03:25 PM
Why not just restructure it from a guaranteed contract to one with incentives? You want the 4 mill Warren? Ok, then go out there and show us you can stay healthy and EARN the 4 mill.
Bird in the hand; this season could be Warrens last, so he probably doesn't want to play for peanuts (by NFL standards.) A heavily incentivized contract would make all or most of his retirement nest egg contingent on making the Pro Bowl, so it could be a hard sell. In the real world (especially with his injuries the last couple years,) Warren's season will probably be more like Rod Smiths last one than like Rod Tidwells. :tongue:

claymore
05-13-2012, 04:07 PM
I wouldnt take a pay cut either if I had zero loyalties to the team, and few 4 million dollar years left.

Dapper Dan
05-13-2012, 04:13 PM
Maybe I was raised different, but I'd sure feel like shit taking all of that money last season and not producing. Hell, I'd at least be over at Mr Bowlen's house, mowing the lawn.

MOtorboat
05-13-2012, 04:29 PM
Anyone who claims they would willingly take less money when a contract has already been signed, is kidding themselves.

Well, the deck is halfway done, and I know I said I'd pay you $2,000 and even signed a contract, but I'm actually only going to give you $1,000 because it's not done already...

MOtorboat
05-13-2012, 04:31 PM
I wouldnt take a pay cut either if I had zero loyalties to the team, and few 4 million dollar years left.

And could be cut at any time and earn nothing...

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 04:43 PM
When I'm looking at taking less than what I already have or unemployment I'll take less than what I already have.......

guitarj
05-13-2012, 05:01 PM
What deck? The injury occurred before the deck was started.
Halfway through nothing at this point!

ShaneFalco
05-13-2012, 05:27 PM
should have kept Bunkley and released him

DenBronx
05-13-2012, 05:38 PM
should have kept Bunkley and released him

I couldnt agree more. Why keep the bum who can't even get on the field? Bunk was a workhorse and I though he did very well in our scheme. Bunk, Thomas and Wolfe would have been a very solid rotation.

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 08:07 PM
should have kept Bunkley and released him

Great point.......

Davii
05-13-2012, 08:44 PM
Great point.......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bunk chose to head to NOLA, I don't remember it being a deal of Denver not wanting him.

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 09:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bunk chose to head to NOLA, I don't remember it being a deal of Denver not wanting him.

You're not wrong but it's not like Bunkley didn't want Denver either, it was a business decision for both parties. I don't blame either sides. I think what Chronic was saying was Denver should have cut ties with Warren and used that money to come to terms with Bunkley. I think that's a great point.......

MOtorboat
05-13-2012, 09:56 PM
You're not wrong but it's not like Bunkley didn't want Denver either, it was a business decision for both parties. I don't blame either sides. I think what Chronic was saying was Denver should have cut ties with Warren and used that money to come to terms with Bunkley. I think that's a great point.......

Judging from what happened, Bunkley didn't want anything to do with Denver.

That's the thing people never seem to get through their heads. Its not as black and white as you want it to be. It wasn't as simple as "Denver chose not to keep bunk." That's extremely short-sighted.

bcbronc
05-13-2012, 10:17 PM
Cut his ass and let someone else pay him to spend the season on IR.

Simple Jaded
05-13-2012, 10:18 PM
Judging from what happened, Bunkley didn't want anything to do with Denver.

That's the thing people never seem to get through their heads. Its not as black and white as you want it to be. It wasn't as simple as "Denver chose not to keep bunk." That's extremely short-sighted.
Yes I admit it, I am assuming that Bunkley would have been willing to resign if the Broncos were offering as much as NO. But like I said, I have no problem with Denver not wanting to give Bunkley that contract, I just think they'd been better off doing what Chronic suggested.

Btw, your first statement sounds kinda black and white to me.......

ShaneFalco
05-14-2012, 01:25 AM
yea thats what i meant. If he is going to cost that much with that ineffective last few seasons. Bunkley who had a great year, should have recieved his check instead. We could have ponied up the deal Bunkley got easily.

Jsteve01
05-14-2012, 10:33 AM
People kept talking about how we couldn't pay Bunk 5 million per when he only played half the snaps at DT. Let's see here 5 mill per for half the snaps looks a hell of a lot better than 4 mill per for zero.

BroncoWave
05-14-2012, 10:44 AM
I have to laugh at everyone criticizing Warren for not being a "team guy" and not restructuring his contract to help the team. Why should he give the Broncos back money to help them? The NFL shows no loyalty to players as they can have their contract terminated at the drop of a hat and not get a dime of it. Why should players show any loyalty to teams given that? NFL players never know how long they will stay in the league or if they will ever get another contract. I will never criticize anyone for getting their money while they can. I find it hard to believe that anyone on this board would take a 25% or 75% or any substantial pay cut if their bosses asked them.

Davii
05-14-2012, 10:59 AM
I have to laugh at everyone criticizing Warren for not being a "team guy" and not restructuring his contract to help the team. Why should he give the Broncos back money to help them? The NFL shows no loyalty to players as they can have their contract terminated at the drop of a hat and not get a dime of it. Why should players show any loyalty to teams given that? NFL players never know how long they will stay in the league or if they will ever get another contract. I will never criticize anyone for getting their money while they can. I find it hard to believe that anyone on this board would take a 25% or 75% or any substantial pay cut if their bosses asked them.

I have to laugh at anyone that thinks unemployment is a better alternative.

bcbronc
05-14-2012, 11:01 AM
I have to laugh at anyone that tries to compare football to real life.

Jsteve01
05-14-2012, 11:06 AM
I have to laugh at everyone criticizing Warren for not being a "team guy" and not restructuring his contract to help the team. Why should he give the Broncos back money to help them? The NFL shows no loyalty to players as they can have their contract terminated at the drop of a hat and not get a dime of it. Why should players show any loyalty to teams given that? NFL players never know how long they will stay in the league or if they will ever get another contract. I will never criticize anyone for getting their money while they can. I find it hard to believe that anyone on this board would take a 25% or 75% or any substantial pay cut if their bosses asked them.

If I missed an entire year of work and my boss payed my full freaking salary? You're damn skippy I'd take a pay cut for my company. Especially when we're talking millions of freaking dollars.

BroncoWave
05-14-2012, 11:18 AM
I have to laugh at anyone that thinks unemployment is a better alternative.

Ok, so they cut him and if he can't find a team to pay him 4 mil he comes back to Denver at the restructured rate, or goes to another team on the cheap. He shouldn't just give away that 4 mil without trying to keep it though.

BroncoWave
05-14-2012, 11:20 AM
If I missed an entire year of work and my boss payed my full freaking salary? You're damn skippy I'd take a pay cut for my company. Especially when we're talking millions of freaking dollars.

That's really easy to say when you aren't in the position of your employer asking you to reduce your salary by 75%.

Jsteve01
05-14-2012, 11:22 AM
That's really easy to say when you aren't in the position of your employer asking you to reduce your salary by 75%.

lol who here could miss a year of work and get 100 percent of their salary?

BroncoWave
05-14-2012, 11:29 AM
lol who here could miss a year of work and get 100 percent of their salary?

Your job isn't like an NFL job. Teams and players both know that season-ending injuries are a real possibility. It's in the contract that the team has to pay you your contract whether you play every game or are injured for the whole season. It's not like he just took off a year because he was bored or tired of playing. If I have a contract saying I will get payed 4 mil a year even if an injury forces me to miss time, I'm not just going to give it away because of an injury out of my control.

Cugel
05-14-2012, 11:39 AM
The question "would Warren take a pay-cut" is simple. Is there some other team out there that will offer him more?

He was a very good DT. . . . in 2009. But, he hasn't played a down since January 2010 and in football that's a long time. Missing one entire season to injury is bad. Missing several years is career threatening.

The Broncos want to pay him $1.5 million. Frankly, that's a VERY LOWBALL figure because starting DTs make $2 to $4 million per year.

His agent probably told him that the Broncos don't value DTs the way other teams (like the Ravens do). If Elway & Fox don't think he's worth it, possibly some other team will offer him $2 million for a year (with perhaps some incentive bonuses based on performance).

He clearly thinks he can come in and be a starter on the Broncos (and given the fact that they don't have any good DTs) he's probably right.

I'd probably pay him his $2 million, but I'm not trying to cut corners like Bowlen is.

Clearly the Broncos are trying to stay within their "budget" even though they are well within the salary cap. Next year that's going to be against league rules so Bowlen is just being a cheap ******* this season.

If they really think they don't need any good DTs and can simply put in a bunch of stiffs every year and pay them $1 million to $1.5 million then good luck with that! The rest of the league disagrees, and based on the past performance of the Broncos defense, especially their run defense, the rest of the league is probably right.

SUMMARY: Warren almost certainly expected to have the Broncos demand a pay-cut, but he probably didn't think they would try and cut his salary from $4 million down to $1 to $1.5 million.

That indicates that the Broncos don't really want Warren that much and that he's unlikely to return. Just a total waste of $4 million from last year if they get nothing from him now. As for Vickerson, he's lucky to have a job in the NFL at all. So, if he refused to take a pay-cut, then he might find himself sitting out the season. That's why he signed.

But, Warren could probably find more than $1.5 million somewhere else.

Davii
05-14-2012, 11:50 AM
Ok, so they cut him and if he can't find a team to pay him 4 mil he comes back to Denver at the restructured rate, or goes to another team on the cheap. He shouldn't just give away that 4 mil without trying to keep it though.

He's not showing the team the same respect he was shown last season. Instead of reaching an injury settlement and.cutting ties he was paid full salary to stay home. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't take the offer given but I would negotiate.


That's really easy to say when you aren't in the position of your employer asking you to reduce your salary by 75%.

Nor are you.


Your job isn't like an NFL job. Teams and players both know that season-ending injuries are a real possibility. It's in the contract that the team has to pay you your contract whether you play every game or are injured for the whole season. It's not like he just took off a year because he was bored or tired of playing. If I have a contract saying I will get payed 4 mil a year even if an injury forces me to miss time, I'm not just going to give it away because of an injury out of my control.

Funny, my job is a lot like that... I can get canned for it too... Mine doesn't involve a lot of money though it's a working salary....

Anyhow, the team could've cut bait last year and reached settlement with him. Instead they took a player first approach, paid the man, and ensured he ws a part of the future plans. He can negotiate, maybe it turns out to be 2.5 mill or 3, or he can go test the market for an old guy that hasn't played in two years...

We'll see how that works out. Me personally I'd negotiate with my current team and try to get another year or two on contract. If nothing else it'll raise my next injury settlement.

HORSEPOWER 56
05-14-2012, 12:01 PM
Normally, guys don't take a "pay-cut". Teams restructure a player's deal and convert some salary into bonus money to help with the cap. If they really are asking him to take a no-kidding 75% pay cut, then I'm not surprised that he is balking at it. Once you reach a certain standard of living, you can't just take a huge pay cut without repercussions to that lifestyle. $1 million may not be enough to pay his bills if he's used to living on $4 mil per year.

Whatever happens, I just hope that if he is on the roster come opening day he can stay healthy and contribute. Drafting Wolfe didn't solve our D-line problems by a damned sight. I'm really pulling for Wolfe to break out and be the guy the FO thinks he can be, but our D-line - in particular our DTs, are still our achilles heel on defense. We've got lots of guys on the roster, but none other than Doom and Von (on passing downs) strike fear into anyone.

Cugel
05-14-2012, 12:06 PM
I see no reason why a player SHOULD be loyal to a team that didn't draft him, for which he never played a down if they want to "renegotiate" his contract to give him a 75% pay-cut due to an injury in a sport where injury is a recurring fact of life.

It's all about negotiating leverage. The Broncos decided they can live without Ty Warren and don't want to pay him a starting salary.

Fine. That's their business decision. But Warren isn't required to accept it. He can go elsewhere and try try to find another team that will pay more. And he probably can. Probably not anything close to $4 million, but probably somewhat more than $1.5 million.

And then the Broncos can stuff all the money they saved into large bales and stack them up in the middle of their run-defense and see how well that stops RBs from rushing right up the middle into the defensive secondary! :coffee:

Jsteve01
05-14-2012, 12:19 PM
I think part of their position is that they seem to have a big hard on for Sealver Siliga. I know I know. I'm just saying. I keep hearing his name mentioned and he was a big time run stopper at Utah

Cugel
05-14-2012, 12:31 PM
I think part of their position is that they seem to have a big hard on for Sealver Siliga. I know I know. I'm just saying. I keep hearing his name mentioned and he was a big time run stopper at Utah

Possibly he makes the roster but do you really think they see him as a viable STARTER in replacement of Warren?

No. :coffee:

So, that's not really a part of the equation. Siliga would at MOST play the backup role that Ryan McBean did last season and probably not even that.

I wouldn't put any money down on his chances of making the 53 man roster, no matter what talk there is out of Dove Valley right now. Talk is cheap and talk in May is cheaper than the wind.

Davii
05-14-2012, 12:34 PM
Possibly he makes the roster but do you really think they see him as a viable STARTER in replacement of Warren?

No. :coffee:

So, that's not really a part of the equation. Siliga would at MOST play the backup role that Ryan McBean did last season and probably not even that.

I wouldn't put any money down on his chances of making the 53 man roster, no matter what talk there is out of Dove Valley right now. Talk is cheap and talk in May is cheaper than the wind.

If the 4 mill this year is as worthwhile as last years then I am a viable replacement.

Cugel
05-14-2012, 01:04 PM
If the 4 mill this year is as worthwhile as last years then I am a viable replacement.

Can you stuff the run as well as, say, Bunkley could? Let's get you on the scale and have a look then! :laugh:

NightTerror218
05-14-2012, 01:19 PM
I would tell him to take the paycut or they are going seperate ways. They can go after Franklin and Thomas who have actually played within the last two years.

Jsteve01
05-14-2012, 02:11 PM
Possibly he makes the roster but do you really think they see him as a viable STARTER in replacement of Warren?

No. :coffee:

So, that's not really a part of the equation. Siliga would at MOST play the backup role that Ryan McBean did last season and probably not even that.

I wouldn't put any money down on his chances of making the 53 man roster, no matter what talk there is out of Dove Valley right now. Talk is cheap and talk in May is cheaper than the wind.

Cuge you defend your position so much that you don't even know who to argue with. I'm not buying an the smoke out of Dove Valley on Siliga at this point. I do remember he was a good run stopping tackle at Utah but he's an undersized Nose and and underathletic UT. He may surprise us all, but I'm not counting on it...so you can put your coffee drinking smiley away now.

GEM
05-15-2012, 04:39 PM
But he had no problem cashing the checks when he hadn't played a down for Denver. :rolleyes:

GEM
05-15-2012, 04:55 PM
I don't want to hear would you take a paycut....

If a team took a flyer on me with the known risks of Warren, then I got hurt and took their money for a year, I would be more inclined to make some concessions.

buffsroam
05-15-2012, 05:02 PM
Possibly he makes the roster but do you really think they see him as a viable STARTER in replacement of Warren?

No. :coffee:

So, that's not really a part of the equation. Siliga would at MOST play the backup role that Ryan McBean did last season and probably not even that.

I wouldn't put any money down on his chances of making the 53 man roster, no matter what talk there is out of Dove Valley right now. Talk is cheap and talk in May is cheaper than the wind.

Wow, the dumbest statement yet. "a viable starter in replacement of Warren". Can you explain when Warren was a STARTER for the Broncos? Maybe I missed last season.

GEM
05-15-2012, 05:07 PM
Possibly he makes the roster but do you really think they see him as a viable STARTER in replacement of Warren?

No. :coffee:

So, that's not really a part of the equation. Siliga would at MOST play the backup role that Ryan McBean did last season and probably not even that.

I wouldn't put any money down on his chances of making the 53 man roster, no matter what talk there is out of Dove Valley right now. Talk is cheap and talk in May is cheaper than the wind.

:confused: When was Ty Warren a starter with the Denver Broncos....hell, when was the last time he was a full time starter?

Ravage!!!
05-15-2012, 05:10 PM
a 75% paycut is something to bawk at. I can't say that I blame him. EVERYONE here would do the same thing, EVEN if you missed work due to an injury. YOu missed work because of an injury, incurred while at work, and came back..... would you simply go "ok" when they say they want to cut your salary down by 75%? No. Please dont give me the "but its 1,000,000" stuff. That has nothing to do with it.

If people think that he should be "happy" to just get a chance to play, then he'll be happy to play somewhere else for more money. Personally, I would rather keep him. I'm not saying throw the money trucks at the man, but I certainly understand why someone would be upset with a 75% paycut offer.

dogfish
05-15-2012, 05:20 PM
If people think that he should be "happy" to just get a chance to play, then he'll be happy to play somewhere else for more money. Personally, I would rather keep him. I'm not saying throw the money trucks at the man, but I certainly understand why someone would be upset with a 75% paycut offer.

sure, he'd be ****in' thrilled to play anywhere else for more money. . .

good luck to him! dude is old and broken down, and completely unreliable at this point. . . he can swallow his pride, take the pay cut and play for just over vet minimum here-- or, he can get cut, and probably play for about the vet minimum somewhere else. . . NO ONE is signing a guy that hasn't played in two years to any kind of significant contract, not at his age. . . he may well not get signed at all, given that younger and healtier players like franklin and thomas are just sitting out there. . . a 75% pay cut sounds really bad-- until you compare it to a 100% pay cut. . .

Ravage!!!
05-15-2012, 05:52 PM
sure, he'd be ****in' thrilled to play anywhere else for more money. . .

good luck to him! dude is old and broken down, and completely unreliable at this point. . . he can swallow his pride, take the pay cut and play for just over vet minimum here-- or, he can get cut, and probably play for about the vet minimum somewhere else. . . NO ONE is signing a guy that hasn't played in two years to any kind of significant contract, not at his age. . . he may well not get signed at all, given that younger and healtier players like franklin and thomas are just sitting out there. . . a 75% pay cut sounds really bad-- until you compare it to a 100% pay cut. . .

I'm just saying that I wouldn't be happy either. Do I know he can't find a team that will be willing to sign him for 300,000 more than we offer? Nope. Do I know that he can't find the same offer on another team? No. I'm saying that if I were him, I wouldn't be "on board" with a 75% pay cut either.

Buff
05-15-2012, 07:49 PM
**** Ty Warren.

Cugel
05-16-2012, 08:42 AM
Wow, the dumbest statement yet. "a viable starter in replacement of Warren". Can you explain when Warren was a STARTER for the Broncos? Maybe I missed last season.

Have you forgotten that Warren and Vickerson were supposed to be the Broncos starting DTs last season until they got hurt? Absolutely ZERO question that Warren would have started if he had been healthy.

He was by FAR the Broncos most talented DT and they didn't pay him $4 million a year to rehab!

And right now, assuming that they re-sign him and he's healthy, he's still the best DT on their roster. In fact he's the ONLY DT on the entire roster who's EVER been any good at all.

Perhaps fans are more familiar with Denver's roster so they tend to over-exaggerate the value of Denver players.

But, the current rotation wouldn't even make the 53 man roster on most NFL teams with a GOOD set of DTs. They really SUCK.

Adding Wolfe might help if he pans out like Fox expects. But, he won't do much his rookie year (even Haloti Ngata took 3 years).

So, while I don't think Warren is going to be a Pro-bowler, he's still head and shoulders more talented than any other Denver DT.

Can they get by without him? Sure. If they had anybody else. (And no, Justin Bannan doesn't count).

Remember that the Broncos lost Bunkley, Marcus Thomas, Ryan McBean and now apparently Warren. That's their best FOUR DTs from last season.

And they haven't replaced any of them really. Bannan is old and in the way and Wolfe is a rookie.

bcbronc
05-16-2012, 07:42 PM
The guy has gone two full seasons without facing any live bullets in the trenches. At his age there is no telling if he has anything left in the tank. Its great to say he's the best DT on the roster, 'cept we don't know if he can actually handle the physical requirements of the position at this point in his career.

We do know he couldn't the last two seasons. I wouldn't be willing to bet $4m of my bosses money that he'll be able to now. :coffee:

ShaneFalco
05-16-2012, 08:27 PM
im just wondering how the broncos didnt see this coming before they let bunkley go. They had to have talked to Warren before...

Simple Jaded
05-16-2012, 09:07 PM
im just wondering how the broncos didnt see this coming before they let bunkley go. They had to have talked to Warren before...

On the other hand, by asking now the rest of the league has filled most of it's needs, there won't be much of a market for Warren but there will be less now than in early March.

Unless Warren and his reps already have a few leads, which would explain why he's dug in his heels.......

Jsteve01
05-17-2012, 08:44 AM
hate to say it but our F.O. is making a habit of this with the DT position the last few years. Sign guys to bad deals and then blame the guys when they don't perform to the level of their bloated contract. It was Bannan and Jamal a few years ago and now it's Warren.

Cugel
05-17-2012, 10:14 AM
The guy has gone two full seasons without facing any live bullets in the trenches. At his age there is no telling if he has anything left in the tank. Its great to say he's the best DT on the roster, 'cept we don't know if he can actually handle the physical requirements of the position at this point in his career.

We do know he couldn't the last two seasons. I wouldn't be willing to bet $4m of my bosses money that he'll be able to now. :coffee:

Absolutely accurate. We DON'T know! In fact it's probably true that he'd be mighty "rusty" at best. It's beyond impossible that he'd just step in and be the same exact player he was in 2009.

So, YES he is going to have to take a pay-cut whether he wants to or not because NOBODY is going to pay him $4 million.

The questions are:

#1 -- Which Broncos DT is better than Ty Warren? Wolfe? Not this season. Bannan? He's older than a fossil Trilobite! If he can creak out there and give them about 30% of the snaps that's literally all they can ask.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bJnGF_WmPSU/RxKLmDaTWoI/AAAAAAAABTo/P-0Z_99_JEY/s320/trilobite.jpg
Recent picture of Justin Bannan.

What about the rest of the "usual suspects"? Vickerson? Well, they seem to love him, but he's never done anything in his career to remotely suggest that he'd be better than "adequate". If he duplicates Ryan McBean's 4 sacks from last year that would be exceeding expectations.

Who does that leave? Mitch Unrein? :rolleyes:

#2 -- Given that the Broncos have nobody better than Ty Warren, how MUCH of a pay-cut should they insist on?

They better pay him something more than $1 million, not because he's great, but because the rest of their DTs (outside the rookie Wolfe) are utter CRAP!

BroncoWave
05-17-2012, 10:36 AM
im just wondering how the broncos didnt see this coming before they let bunkley go. They had to have talked to Warren before...

Ugh, stop this people. It's not like Denver just "let" him go. He was a priority FA and they tried to sign him back, but the Saints offered him a better contract while he was in New Orleans and he took it. It happens in the NFL all the time. That's like saying the Texans just willingly "let" Mario Williams go because he signed with another team. By pretty much everything I read the Saints overpaid for Bunkley and the Broncos didn't want to further overpay him just because he is in a position of need. That's called poor cap management and it's why teams like the Resdkins and Cowboys never win by constantly throwing money around at free agents.

NightTerror218
05-17-2012, 11:33 AM
Well FO can cut him and sign Thomas.

Superchop 7
05-17-2012, 12:05 PM
The issue is "recompense", the Broncos want a deal due to the rehab year. McGahee wants recompense for the year he had.

The Broncos need to figure out where they stand.

tomjonesrocks
05-17-2012, 08:55 PM
The issue is "recompense", the Broncos want a deal due to the rehab year. McGahee wants recompense for the year he had.

The Broncos need to figure out where they stand.

That's actually a great point. Warren underperformed (ha), McGahee over performed.

I think it's fine to cut Warren and give McGahee a bonus. Cut Moreno while you're at it. Send the message that if you produce, you get paid in Denver.

ShaneFalco
05-17-2012, 09:03 PM
On the other hand, by asking now the rest of the league has filled most of it's needs, there won't be much of a market for Warren but there will be less now than in early March.

Unless Warren and his reps already have a few leads, which would explain why he's dug in his heels.......

Ugh, stop this people. It's not like Denver just "let" him go. He was a priority FA and they tried to sign him back, but the Saints offered him a better contract while he was in New Orleans and he took it. It happens in the NFL all the time. That's like saying the Texans just willingly "let" Mario Williams go because he signed with another team. By pretty much everything I read the Saints overpaid for Bunkley and the Broncos didn't want to further overpay him just because he is in a position of need. That's called poor cap management and it's why teams like the Resdkins and Cowboys never win by constantly throwing money around at free agents.


thats really terrible forsight on our part..... they could have done the deal when FA started with Warren. I just dont understand how they did not see this coming. it goes for any player, any position. If there is no good players left on market, they can ask for whatever they want unless we want to start undrafted rookies. Which could possibly make sense at this point now. Bring in some undrafted rookie DTs, see if Warren decides to change his mind. Hopefully he does.

Cugel
05-18-2012, 12:01 AM
If there is no good players left on market, they can ask for whatever they want unless we want to start undrafted rookies. Which could possibly make sense at this point now. Bring in some undrafted rookie DTs, see if Warren decides to change his mind. Hopefully he does.

Saying "bring in some undrafted rookie DTs is about like saying 'bring in some undrafted rookie QBs." Any DT who's remotely any good gets drafted. There just aren't any DT prospects who don't even get drafted who become starters anymore than you can find a starting QB among the undrafted discard pile.

Remember when the Broncos signed undrafted rookie QB Matt Mauch? How did that work out? Once in 15 years you get Kurt Warner. Every other time it's Matt Mauch all the way. :coffee:

NorCalBronco7
05-18-2012, 02:17 AM
Man everyone saying "ufff the dts syck"

Who was Brodrick Bunkley to you this time last year?

Have faith in Fox/Del Rio.

Cugel
05-18-2012, 08:43 AM
Man everyone saying "ufff the dts syck"

Who was Brodrick Bunkley to you this time last year?

Have faith in Fox/Del Rio.

Broderick Bunkley was an underachieving former top 10 pick for the Eagles. He was considered a bust in Philly because a top 10 pick is supposed to become an elite pass-rusher and Bunkley never lived up to that standard.

The Broncos have tried this repeatedly before, remember? Bringing in former top 10 draft pick busts?

Remember Gerrard Warren? Ebeneezer Ekuban? Jimmy Kennedy? How about Dewayne Robertson? They always hoped that a "change of scenery would resurrect a once promising career" and a guy who was a top 10 draft pick out of college would suddenly blossom. And it almost NEVER works out.

After ten years of endless failure they sign Bunkley for a late round pick, and he gets 43 tackles and is stout against the run.

Obviously Fox wants to bring in a FA DT if they can find one. But the chances of that working out and the guy being any good are not red hot. It's like putting your money on the roulette wheel at Vegas. Mostly you're just going to lose. :coffee:

Jsteve01
05-18-2012, 08:50 AM
Broderick Bunkley was an underachieving former top 10 pick for the Eagles. He was considered a bust in Philly because a top 10 pick is supposed to become an elite pass-rusher and Bunkley never lived up to that standard.

The Broncos have tried this repeatedly before, remember? Bringing in former top 10 draft pick busts?

Remember Gerrard Warren? Ebeneezer Ekuban? Jimmy Kennedy? How about Dewayne Robertson? They always hoped that a "change of scenery would resurrect a once promising career" and a guy who was a top 10 draft pick out of college would suddenly blossom. And it almost NEVER works out.

After ten years of endless failure they sign Bunkley for a late round pick, and he gets 43 tackles and is stout against the run.

Obviously Fox wants to bring in a FA DT if they can find one. But the chances of that working out and the guy being any good are not red hot. It's like putting your money on the roulette wheel at Vegas. Mostly you're just going to lose. :coffee:

would someone please turn off this guys coffee drinking icon? Please? for the love of pete. It's not cute anymore man. The sad thing is that your smug I told you so and I'm always right attitude is that I find myself agreeing with you right up until I see your signature coffee drinking smiley. For the love of God man change it up once in a while.

Cugel
05-18-2012, 11:19 AM
would someone please turn off this guys coffee drinking icon? Please? for the love of pete. It's not cute anymore man. The sad thing is that your smug I told you so and I'm always right attitude is that I find myself agreeing with you right up until I see your signature coffee drinking smiley. For the love of God man change it up once in a while.

Would you prefer :rolleyes: or perhaps :tsk: ?

How about :2thumbsdown:

It's not supposed to be "cute." It expresses sardonic humor or sarcasm.

Dapper Dan
05-18-2012, 03:21 PM
Would you prefer :rolleyes: or perhaps :tsk: ?



Yes

Jsteve01
05-18-2012, 03:25 PM
Would you prefer :rolleyes: or perhaps :tsk: ?

How about :2thumbsdown:

It's not supposed to be "cute." It expresses sardonic humor or sarcasm.

right see the thing with sarcasm and satire is they're subtle. Humor is non repetitive. When you use it every single time you post. and you even use it multiple times in the same post it kind of ruins the feel. makes you look smug.

NorCalBronco7
05-18-2012, 06:57 PM
Broderick Bunkley was an underachieving former top 10 pick for the Eagles. He was considered a bust in Philly because a top 10 pick is supposed to become an elite pass-rusher and Bunkley never lived up to that standard.

The Broncos have tried this repeatedly before, remember? Bringing in former top 10 draft pick busts?

Remember Gerrard Warren? Ebeneezer Ekuban? Jimmy Kennedy? How about Dewayne Robertson? They always hoped that a "change of scenery would resurrect a once promising career" and a guy who was a top 10 draft pick out of college would suddenly blossom. And it almost NEVER works out.

After ten years of endless failure they sign Bunkley for a late round pick, and he gets 43 tackles and is stout against the run.

Obviously Fox wants to bring in a FA DT if they can find one. But the chances of that working out and the guy being any good are not red hot. It's like putting your money on the roulette wheel at Vegas. Mostly you're just going to lose. :coffee:

So clearly you thought nothing of him. Yet, Bunkley worked out. Thats the point.

The Broncos the last ten years might be batting horrible with free agent DTs, but so far Fox, in his short time here, has turned a former bust in a multimillion dollar player. Nobody saw that coming. Fox knows the defense better that most. All Im saying is have a little faith.

NorCalBronco7
05-18-2012, 07:04 PM
right see the thing with sarcasm and satire is they're subtle. Humor is non repetitive. When you use it every single time you post. and you even use it multiple times in the same post it kind of ruins the feel. makes you look smug.

Maybe he never gets old of his own jokes?

Simple Jaded
05-18-2012, 10:12 PM
Matt Mauch was drafted.......just sayin.......

Cugel
05-19-2012, 10:25 AM
So clearly you thought nothing of him. Yet, Bunkley worked out. Thats the point.

The Broncos the last ten years might be batting horrible with free agent DTs, but so far Fox, in his short time here, has turned a former bust in a multimillion dollar player. Nobody saw that coming. Fox knows the defense better that most. All Im saying is have a little faith.

Well I don't think it was Fox's great coaching that turned Bunkley's career around, it was more like Bunkley turned Bunkley's career around. I don't think Fox can just take any scrub and have him turn it around. We'll see.

It's certainly not impossible for Fox to find another NT in July. But, I think it's a LOT more likely that we'll see another worthless reject like Dewayne Robertson or Jamal Williams, or Ron Fields or Justin Bannan or Sam Adams or Gerrard Warren, etc.

When the Broncos signed Dewayne Robertson, it's not like there was some much better alternative out there. They were scraping the bottom of the barrel and hoping for the best. Robertson was an exceptionally talented former top 10 draft pick, whose bone-on-bone conditions in both knees ruined his career (just like Courtney Brown).

90% of the time that doesn't work out. The underachiever continues to underachieve. The old and injured don't suddenly get healthy.

Once in a great while it does work and the guy blossoms in a new town like Bunkley did. Then he gets a five year $25 million contract and immediately leaves town.

Cugel
05-19-2012, 10:32 AM
Matt Mauch was drafted.......just sayin.......

Well, he and Bradley Van Pelt were taken in the 7th round. Not much real difference between a late 7th round QB and an undrafted QB.

Neither one ever started a game in the NFL. That's the point.

NorCalBronco7
05-19-2012, 05:06 PM
Well I don't think it was Fox's great coaching that turned Bunkley's career around, it was more like Bunkley turned Bunkley's career around. I don't think Fox can just take any scrub and have him turn it around. We'll see.

It's certainly not impossible for Fox to find another NT in July. But, I think it's a LOT more likely that we'll see another worthless reject like Dewayne Robertson or Jamal Williams, or Ron Fields or Justin Bannan or Sam Adams or Gerrard Warren, etc.

When the Broncos signed Dewayne Robertson, it's not like there was some much better alternative out there. They were scraping the bottom of the barrel and hoping for the best. Robertson was an exceptionally talented former top 10 draft pick, whose bone-on-bone conditions in both knees ruined his career (just like Courtney Brown).

90% of the time that doesn't work out. The underachiever continues to underachieve. The old and injured don't suddenly get healthy.

Once in a great while it does work and the guy blossoms in a new town like Bunkley did. Then he gets a five year $25 million contract and immediately leaves town.

Most FA DTs the past ten years have not panned out for the Broncos. How many time will you rephrase that sentence?

Yes, Im also pretty damn the Broncos can find a NT around this time, or anytime if needed (especially in what looks to be a one gap scheme). But how then can "90%" fail? Is your view of football so myopic that you believe every struggle the Broncos face, the rest of the league must bear the same?

Cugel
05-21-2012, 05:25 PM
Most FA DTs the past ten years have not panned out for the Broncos. How many time will you rephrase that sentence?

Yes, Im also pretty damn the Broncos can find a NT around this time, or anytime if needed (especially in what looks to be a one gap scheme). But how then can "90%" fail? Is your view of football so myopic that you believe every struggle the Broncos face, the rest of the league must bear the same?

Other teams draft DTs in the first round. The Broncos haven't done that since Trevor Pryce. OK, they drafted Derek Wolfe, and we should give them a pass on their drafting until we see how he develops.

But, the Broncos have tried to paper over a gaping hole in the middle of their defense for the last 10 seasons now.

If you don't like seeing the list of Broncos FA failures at DT then stop telling me to "believe" that they can just sign some FA NT and everything will be fine. It won't.

It hasn't. It isn't going to work because it almost never works. You seem to think that "other teams" do just fine because they can magically find really good DTs in FA.

That's just flat WRONG. Aside from a couple of high-priced FAs who are signed in March every year there are no more good DTs on the FA market than there are good LTs or QBs.

Anybody who is even marginally good gets signed quickly to a high salary. Teams overpay if they have to sign a FA DT. That's why teams draft them and try and keep them.

Dzone
05-21-2012, 08:19 PM
Ty Warren is no better than Al Haynesworth. Both are over the hill. Get rid of Warren, he sucks

NorCalBronco7
05-22-2012, 12:40 AM
Other teams draft DTs in the first round. The Broncos haven't done that since Trevor Pryce. OK, they drafted Derek Wolfe, and we should give them a pass on their drafting until we see how he develops.

But, the Broncos have tried to paper over a gaping hole in the middle of their defense for the last 10 seasons now.


If you don't like seeing the list of Broncos FA failures at DT then stop telling me to "believe" that they can just sign some FA NT and everything will be fine. It won't.

It hasn't. It isn't going to work because it almost never works. You seem to think that "other teams" do just fine because they can magically find really good DTs in FA.

That's just flat WRONG. Aside from a couple of high-priced FAs who are signed in March every year there are no more good DTs on the FA market than there are good LTs or QBs.

Anybody who is even marginally good gets signed quickly to a high salary. Teams overpay if they have to sign a FA DT. That's why teams draft them and try and keep them.

Your the Matt Millian of DTs. Just keep drafting them high, and hopefully something sticks. Theres no other way. DTs are a premium position in the NFL, because we all know outside rushers, safeties, and corners take a backseat in the modern NFL.

Yeah, they'res NOTHING ever on the free agent wire. No value signings....because DTs are elite or bottom of the barrel. They'res NEVER that guy just thats needs a second chance, a different coach, different enviorment. Nah, not with DTs!

"IDK, see the last tens years in Denver" :lol:

Thats all you got. Yet, when a certain new coach came to Denver, hes disproved your idea of DTs, in his first year (but I see no hope in that either). Hmmmmm, maybe Fox knows more about defensive players than Shanahan and Mc****face. Just a hunch.

Dzone
05-22-2012, 06:14 PM
Ty Warren reminds us all of that fat guy from San Diego, Jamal Williams I think was his name. He was good once, but by the time he arrived in Denver, his tank was on EMPTY. Same with Warren. Ty Warren hasnt even played tackle football in what, like 3 years now? We shouldnt even be discussing him. He will be out of the league by August. Bring on the Wolfeman

ShaneFalco
05-22-2012, 06:15 PM
i would rather bring in undrafted camp players and give them a shot over warren. They probably have alot more desire to play and start in the NFL then he does, just lack some of the best physcial attributes.

Jsteve01
05-22-2012, 06:27 PM
Well I don't think it was Fox's great coaching that turned Bunkley's career around, it was more like Bunkley turned Bunkley's career around. I don't think Fox can just take any scrub and have him turn it around. We'll see.

It's certainly not impossible for Fox to find another NT in July. But, I think it's a LOT more likely that we'll see another worthless reject like Dewayne Robertson or Jamal Williams, or Ron Fields or Justin Bannan or Sam Adams or Gerrard Warren, etc.

When the Broncos signed Dewayne Robertson, it's not like there was some much better alternative out there. They were scraping the bottom of the barrel and hoping for the best. Robertson was an exceptionally talented former top 10 draft pick, whose bone-on-bone conditions in both knees ruined his career (just like Courtney Brown).

90% of the time that doesn't work out. The underachiever continues to underachieve. The old and injured don't suddenly get healthy.

Once in a great while it does work and the guy blossoms in a new town like Bunkley did. Then he gets a five year $25 million contract and immediately leaves town.

Bunkley was never a bad player in Philly. His problem is that people expect a top 15 pick to rush the passer and that's not his forte. Eat up multiple blockers and own in run defense? He's done it his whole career.

Dzone
05-22-2012, 11:47 PM
Why we didnt push hard to keep Bunkley? I forget why. Was it money? Musta been

Dapper Dan
05-23-2012, 12:12 AM
Why we didnt push hard to keep Bunkley? I forget why. Was it money? Musta been

New Orleans offered more "incentives". :drum:

Cugel
05-23-2012, 12:08 PM
Why we didnt push hard to keep Bunkley? I forget why. Was it money? Musta been

Here's why. :ranger:


Broderick Bunkley, New Orleans Saints: 3/21/2012: Signed a five-year, $25 million contract. The deal contains $9.9 million guaranteed, including a $4.5 million signing bonus and all of Bunkley's first two base salaries. (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3663/brodrick-bunkley) Bunkley is eligible for annual $100,000 workout bonuses in years two through five. 2012: $700,000, 2013: $3.7 million, 2014-2016: $4.4 million, 2017: Free Agent


The Broncos were making a "hard" push to re-sign Bunkley as of Tuesday, but the Saints apparently beat Denver's offer. Bunkley has only six sacks in six seasons, but he is an effective one-gap, 4-3 nose tackle. He projects as an upgrade on outgoing Shaun Rogers and Aubrayo Franklin. Mar 21 - 2:04 PM

Cugel
05-23-2012, 12:11 PM
Bunkley was never a bad player in Philly. His problem is that people expect a top 15 pick to rush the passer and that's not his forte. Eat up multiple blockers and own in run defense? He's done it his whole career.

I think I already said that in this thread. I had to look twice to see that I wasn't replying to my own post! :laugh:

He was a top 7 pick actually and the only reason to take a DT in the top 10 is if you expect him to become an elite pass-rushing DT. He really should have been drafted in the late first or 2nd round because he's a traditional NT. Very strong against the run, but no pass-rush.

The Eagles expect more from their DTs so Bunkley was expendable.

Jsteve01
05-23-2012, 12:16 PM
Bunk was drafted 14th overall, and I agree with you that he was overdrafted. He was a very solid player at FSU, but he destroyed at the combine. It was similar to what Poe did this year. outrageous numbers, but somewhere in the process people forgot he'd never been a dynamic pass rusher.

DenBronx
05-23-2012, 12:23 PM
Well I don't think it was Fox's great coaching that turned Bunkley's career around, it was more like Bunkley turned Bunkley's career around. I don't think Fox can just take any scrub and have him turn it around. We'll see.

Alex Smith/John Harbaugh = Brodrick Bunkley/John Fox

Some coaches just make players better.

Denver Native (Carol)
05-24-2012, 09:51 PM
Today's question about the Broncos comes from Shaun Cooney in Grand Junction:

Q: With Ty Warren whining about making $4 million last season for doing nothing, is there any chance the Broncos just cut him and find themselves another option at defensive tackle who actually wants to play? Have they shown any interest in Tommie Harris? He was part of a good defensive line in Chicago and added some pass rush for San Diego last season in a part-time role.

A: Shaun, Warren was signed to a two-year deal last year with $2.5 million in signing bonus to go with a $1.5 million base salary in 2011. With players getting their full base salary — unless otherwise negotiated in what is known as a split contract — on injured reserve, Warren took home $4 million last season.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20703433/broncos-will-wait-and-see-ty-warren-defensive-tackle-injury

Cugel
05-27-2012, 10:02 AM
things likely won't come to a head on the Warren front until next month, when the Broncos have their minicamp (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20703433/broncos-will-wait-and-see-ty-warren-defensive-tackle-injury). Teams can designate one minicamp in each set of offseason workouts as being mandatory. Therefore, players can be fined for not being there.

If Warren doesn't show then, he will be fined by the team, and at that point they likely would consider moving on if he still didn't want to take the pay cut. The Broncos don't appear all that interested in keeping Warren at his current salary.

Warren is going to take a pay-cut, whether he stays with the Broncos or goes elsewhere because no team is going to pay him $4 million a year when he hasn't played a down since 2009.

The only question is "how much of a pay-cut and where will he end up?"

If he wants to test the FA market, he will probably have to sign a contract laden with incentives and prove that he's still a good player before he could get another high dollar contract.

If he wants to stay he'd have to take $1 million as his base salary, but he could possibly negotiate some performance based incentives.

From Warren's perspective (which everybody tends to ignore) it wasn't his fault that he got hurt. Injury is a part of the game and teams take that risk when they sign players. Now the Broncos are trying to break the contract and penalize him for getting hurt which is unfair.

He feels he's the same player right now that he was last year when he was worth $4 million and he doesn't see why he should have his salary reduced by 3/4. He has a point of course, except that he has little leverage.

He might feel it's less of a blow to his pride to go elsewhere than to stay and take a massive pay-cut that basically says "you're not worth what we were paying you."

If your employer tried to cut your salary by 3/4 would you stay? Not if you knew you could pick up the phone and get a comparable job elsewhere that might pay you somewhat more (even if it was less than what you were making at your old job).

There's something humiliating about doing the same work at your old job for less pay that might make Warren prefer to sign with another team, even if he doesn't get more than the Broncos are offering.

So, I don't think he will be back in Denver.

Traveler
05-28-2012, 05:56 PM
Nice take.

andrewsko82
06-05-2012, 11:32 PM
Make his contract all incentive based. If he gets 5+ sacks and 45+ tackles pay him his money. I personally wouldnt pay him a dime. Hes an aging dt that hasnt played 1 down in 2 years. Were better then people think at dt, its all the manning effect. With manning we will be scoring 25+ so dt just need to eat up blockers so gloom n doom and run wild.

HORSEPOWER 56
06-06-2012, 08:11 AM
Make his contract all incentive based. If he gets 5+ sacks and 45+ tackles pay him his money. I personally wouldnt pay him a dime. Hes an aging dt that hasnt played 1 down in 2 years. Were better then people think at dt, its all the manning effect. With manning we will be scoring 25+ so dt just need to eat up blockers so gloom n doom and run wild.

It's nice to think that a DT can just "eat up blockers" so Von and Doom can just "run wild", but with all the edge rush in the world if you have no push up the middle, then the QB can just step up in the pocket and buy time to throw even with a heavy edge rush. OTs will just force Von and Doom wide and without someone collapsing the pocket from the inside, they won't get to the QB often.

Hopefully, Wolfe will provide that inside force who can get after the QB from the interior. Warren was brought in to play the 3-technique (UT) spot. He was a prior DE in the 3-4 which translates to UT, not NT, in the 4-3. He was supposed to be that guy last year but was injured. Vickerson was our other 3 technique but he also landed on IR leaving us 2 NTs (Bunk/Thomas) as our starting DTs - neither of which gives much vs the pass.

If we think that bringing Manning in will mean we'll be playing with the lead a lot - perhaps that's true, but we have to be able to defend that lead. That means we need to be able to rush the passer and bring pressure in his face regularly. That is what will ensure we can hold that lead. Remember, edge pressure causes sacks, interior pressure forces turnovers. With pressure right in his face, the average QB loses focus and throws bad balls too quickly that get picked, or get batted at the LOS which also leads to picks.

Oh, we also need to be able to stop the run and hold the point of attack on short yardage situations. Manning does us no good standing on the sidelines. That was always the way to beat Indy before, hence why Jacksonville is historically one of the best teams vs Indy (they run the ball and play defense) - not necessarily wins and losses, but close games. Both our run and pass defense must improve and it all starts at the DT position. Von, Doom, and Ayers are all the same and there is some potential improvement in the secondary, but DT is still the big ???.