PDA

View Full Version : Sources: Smith's Torn Meniscus; Marshall Extension Discussed?



Thnikkaman
09-04-2009, 01:20 PM
Linky - http://community.kdvr.com/_SOURCES-SMITHS-TORN-MENISCUS-MARSHALL-EXTENSION-DISCUSSED/blog/634226/96399.html




DE, LE KEVIN SMITH:

Broncos defensive end Le Kevin Smith is currently rehabilitating a torn meniscus, according to sources with knowledge of Smith’s injury situation.

In a trade with New England on August 17th the Broncos gave up a 2010 fifth-round selection to acquire Smith and a 2010 seventh-round, according to foxsports.com.

Smith, who did not participate in the team’s last 2 preseason games, was brought in to bolster the depth along the defensive line.

However sources tell me that Smith’s kind of injury can keep players out four to six weeks. Specifically, the same sources say Smith should miss at least two more games given his own current prognosis. Whether he’ll be allowed that remaining minimum healing team remains to be seen.

When Smith’s agent, Adisa P. Bakari, was questioned about Smith’s current injury status he said, “I don’t comment on my players in these circumstances for reasons that are obvious.”

As we know the Broncos are becoming the Patriots west, and the team is not jumping to disclose any injury detail.


WR, BRANDON MARSHALL:

I have talked to multiple people who have talked to Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall in the midst of his team-imposed suspension for an outside perspective on Marshall’s mental status during his punishment.

These sources tell me uniformly that in their own conversations Marshall’s tone indicates a measure of sincerity and contrition, and that he’s appreciative of the people who’ve reached out to him. They say Marshall sounds like he plans to humbly reintegrate himself back into the team; however as one guy told me, “I am beyond the point of listening to what Brandon says, I only watch what he does now.” The weight of mistrust in many of their reports is very heavy.

Privately Marshall is drawing a lot of strong criticism, particularly from a number of his fellow starting teammates on both sides of the ball. Off the record, significant players have said things like: “he is killing his image;” “We don’t know what he is doing. Sometimes you can’t tell whether he’s coming or going;” “He can’t be trusted. I can’t put my name to vouch for how he’s acting right now;” “He’s acting like an idiot, this is not the way to get his money.”

More specifically one defensive starter said, “Brandon is (edit) up, because if you look at it this is his contract year and he could be playing in a system totally geared around him. He is such a stupid (edit).”

On the other side of the coin, I also haven’t heard one player doubt Marshall’s talent and the need for his skill set. Although the Broncos’ offense has been able to move the chains in his absence in the preseason, the unit’s struggles in the red zone are still evident and noted. There’s no doubt the Broncos can use Marshall’s size in the end zone, and his ability to stretch the field with his play-making skills. That’s why one offensive starter said, “we definitely still need him though if he gets it together.”

And that is the question.

Will Marshall get it together, especially when the issue of money is an ever-present irritant?

Interestingly, sources that have talked to Marshall directly say the Pro Bowl wide receiver is providing his own explanation to them for his upstaging of practice last week Wednesday.

According to these trusted sources, Marshall told them directly his videotaped frustration was connected to his disappointment with the terms of an extension the Broncos recently offered him. Sources were told by Marshall in his own words that this supposed deal averaged nine million dollars a year, but that his frustration stemmed from it being back-loaded as a result of his high risk behavior. Specifically, these sources say Marshall mentioned that this deal could have given him as little as three million in the first year, and that this detail was clearly not satisfactory to him and his statistical resume. In conclusion, these sources who’ve talked directly to Marshall told me to take this information with caution because it was only his version of events as they relay it.

Broncos general manager, Brian Xanders, did not respond immediately for questioning to this end.

Additionally, it is not Brandon Marshall’s agent’s normal practice to comment about specific negotiations details on the record.

However, Marshall’s camp is seemingly undeterred by all recent events and mishaps, and the camp remains steady in their strategy for Marshall’s future.





RB, LAMONT JORDAN:

While in the midst of nursing an injury in the metatarsal area of his foot, Broncos running back Lamont Jordan returned to practice with the team in advance of the team’s last preseason game against the Cardinals. Despite having a similar foot issue while playing for the New England Patriots, Jordan told me beforehand he was hoping to play to retrieve the reps he feels are necessary given his current play, and his time off the practice field.

After recording only one carry for zero yards in the Cardinals game, and many media members speculating in the press box thereafter that Jordan may get cut in favor of running back Darius Walker (the Broncos’ leading rusher in the preseason, 25/105y), I asked Jordan if he feared not making the roster.

Unflinching in his emotion, Jordan adamantly denied being worried at all about making the team, and also added that his lack of playing time last night was unconnected to his immediate future in Denver.

Regardless, if history is to serve as a lesson given all the injuries in the running back unit last season, the Broncos should keep Jordan and allow him time to heal. Cutting Jordan now could bite the team in the butt later on.

All I can say is we’ll see.



DE, JARVIS MOSS:

After missing three training camp days while contemplating his football future and even retirement, the question now is will defensive end/outside linebacker Jarvis Moss make the team?

The Broncos 2007 first-round selection certainly made a case for himself against the Arizona Cardinals Thursday night recording four tackles and one sack.

The interesting note is that Moss seemingly received added inspiration at some point prior to last night’s preseason game.

According to a well-placed source, Moss was told to play his heart out last night because when it comes to upcoming cuts it would either be him or fellow draft classmate defensive end/outside linebacker Tim Crowder to go.

Whether this was said to simply motivate Moss, or was an actual threat the Broncos intend to act out in reality remains to be seen; however the possibility of either player getting cut while the other stays is certainly plausible.

The Broncos have to get their roster down to 53 players by 2pm MDT on Saturday.

claymore
09-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Get'er done. Id be sad if moss ddnt make the cut. But to bad so sad.

honz
09-04-2009, 01:26 PM
I hate Josina Anderson. Reading her articles makes me cringe.

claymore
09-04-2009, 01:27 PM
I hate Josina Anderson. Reading her articles makes me cringe.

I take that as you really like her .

Northman
09-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Privately Marshall is drawing a lot of strong criticism, particularly from a number of his fellow starting teammates on both sides of the ball. Off the record, significant players have said things like: “he is killing his image;” “We don’t know what he is doing. Sometimes you can’t tell whether he’s coming or going;” “He can’t be trusted. I can’t put my name to vouch for how he’s acting right now;” “He’s acting like an idiot, this is not the way to get his money.”

More specifically one defensive starter said, “Brandon is (edit) up, because if you look at it this is his contract year and he could be playing in a system totally geared around him. He is such a stupid (edit).”

Spot on.

Slick
09-04-2009, 01:37 PM
Spot on.

My favorite part of the article. I wonder who said it.

Northman
09-04-2009, 01:39 PM
My favorite part of the article. I wonder who said it.

Not sure but its somebody who evidently "gets it".

underrated29
09-04-2009, 02:00 PM
crowder has looked really good. He better not get cut. he is always applying pressure and such. Cutting him will turn out to be a big mistake.

MOtorboat
09-04-2009, 02:01 PM
crowder has looked really good. He better not get cut. he is always applying pressure and such. Cutting him will turn out to be a big mistake.

It looks like Powell has been cut.

underrated29
09-04-2009, 02:05 PM
It looks like Powell has been cut.



Thats a bummer too. This was essentially his rookie year as he didnt play last year. And we used a 3rd on him last year....He must have really sucked or the coaches didnt take that into account and give him a good chance.

topscribe
09-04-2009, 02:08 PM
Thats a bummer too. This was essentially his rookie year as he didnt play last year. And we used a 3rd on him last year....He must have really sucked or the coaches didnt take that into account and give him a good chance.

Well, maybe they'll put him on the PS, if he doesn't get picked up elsewhere.

-----

SOCALORADO.
09-04-2009, 02:11 PM
Spot on.

That small part of the article i think sums up what most of us think about Marshall. Someone needs to smack him upside the head, and say "Wake up!, STUPID!!"

CoachChaz
09-04-2009, 02:12 PM
So if this is true, it looks like they did offer Marshall a fair contract with stipulations on behavior. Apparently that's not good enough. he wants money now and the right to be an idiot. Never gonna happen

honz
09-04-2009, 02:14 PM
Thats a bummer too. This was essentially his rookie year as he didnt play last year. And we used a 3rd on him last year....He must have really sucked or the coaches didnt take that into account and give him a good chance.

I believe he was a 5th rounder, not a 3rd.

outdoor_miner
09-04-2009, 02:36 PM
Thats a bummer too. This was essentially his rookie year as he didnt play last year. And we used a 3rd on him last year....He must have really sucked or the coaches didnt take that into account and give him a good chance.

Powell was a 5th round pick...

outdoor_miner
09-04-2009, 02:37 PM
I believe he was a 5th rounder, not a 3rd.

Whoops... beat me to it. :)

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 02:48 PM
So if this is true, it looks like they did offer Marshall a fair contract with stipulations on behavior. Apparently that's not good enough. he wants money now and the right to be an idiot. Never gonna happen


I still think there is more to the hip and hand issue that is being let out by him and his doctors.. so far he has shown NADA in practice and has not played in a game yet.. he is afraid to play before he has a contract, and show he can't handle it anymore....

Having to have a huge payday up front is the only reasonable explanation..



that or he knows he is going to beat his fiancé again, that it has been building up all this time and he is going to blow.. ..:lol:

Tned
09-04-2009, 02:54 PM
The info about the contract is consistant with what Jamie Dukes said about Marshall being offered an extension with no signing bonus and no guaranteed money, which is unheard of in the NFL.

MOtorboat
09-04-2009, 02:58 PM
The info about the contract is consistant with what Jamie Dukes said about Marshall being offered an extension with no signing bonus and no guaranteed money, which is unheard of in the NFL.

And Jamie Dukes is an idiot...

Tned
09-04-2009, 03:00 PM
I still think there is more to the hip and hand issue that is being let out by him and his doctors.. so far he has shown NADA in practice and has not played in a game yet.. he is afraid to play before he has a contract, and show he can't handle it anymore....

Having to have a huge payday up front is the only reasonable explanation..



that or he knows he is going to beat his fiancé again, that it has been building up all this time and he is going to blow.. ..:lol:

Actually, it is far from the only reasonable explanation. The compromise the NFLPA has made with these non guaranteed contracts (unlike MLB, NBA, etc. where players who sign a five year contract are paid for the full five years, regardless of injury, performance decline, etc.) is the upfront signing bonuses. So, the normal NFL contract is to give a player a rather hefty signinng bonus, maybe guarantee the first couple years of lowish salary, then have the salary increase on the back end, because teams know that they will typically renegotiate or cut the player before the salary gets really high and has a major cap impact.

So, it is very unusual for a player, even a scrub, to be offered a contract with no guaranteed money.

CoachChaz
09-04-2009, 03:01 PM
Actually, it is far from the only reasonable explanation. The compromise the NFLPA has made with these non guaranteed contracts (unlike MLB, NBA, etc. where players who sign a five year contract are paid for the full five years, regardless of injury, performance decline, etc.) is the upfront signing bonuses. So, the normal NFL contract is to give a player a rather hefty signinng bonus, maybe guarantee the first couple years of lowish salary, then have the salary increase on the back end, because teams know that they will typically renegotiate or cut the player before the salary gets really high and has a major cap impact.

So, it is very unusual for a player, even a scrub, to be offered a contract with no guaranteed money.

I keep praying that one day Rod Woodson will put his foot in Dukes ass for me.

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 03:02 PM
The info about the contract is consistant with what Jamie Dukes said about Marshall being offered an extension with no signing bonus and no guaranteed money, which is unheard of in the NFL.

Lets hope that what dukes, although I think he is a scum bag, is true..

I'd like to see a back loaded contract with lots of incentives:


no arrests,
no wife beating parties/incidents
no more police reports filed.
bonus for TD thresholds at 10/15/20..
bonus for yardage gained 800/1200/1500.
bonus for YAC yards 200/400/600.
bonus for YPC 11/13/14..
bonus for handing the ball back to ball boys..
bonus for punting average..
bonus for not leading the NFL in balls dropped..
bonus for catching percentage 55/60/65/70


everything on there is doable.. for him and he could be a hell of a rich guy if he keeps his head on straight..

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Actually, it is far from the only reasonable explanation. The compromise the NFLPA has made with these non guaranteed contracts (unlike MLB, NBA, etc. where players who sign a five year contract are paid for the full five years, regardless of injury, performance decline, etc.) is the upfront signing bonuses. So, the normal NFL contract is to give a player a rather hefty signinng bonus, maybe guarantee the first couple years of lowish salary, then have the salary increase on the back end, because teams know that they will typically renegotiate or cut the player before the salary gets really high and has a major cap impact.

So, it is very unusual for a player, even a scrub, to be offered a contract with no guaranteed money.


the major reason tha sigin bonuses came into effect was because at the time the last or maybe second to last CBA was signed the one that gave teh players FA ability the contracts were not guaranteed and some enerprising agent and GM figured out that no provision was in there to prohibit them.. Thus they were incentives to come to the teams..

At least that is what I heard when the first ones were signed.. someone overlooked it is the CBA.. and well it has been abused since..

Tned
09-04-2009, 03:22 PM
And Jamie Dukes is an idiot...

Obviously the execs at the NFL Network disagree with your assessment of his mental acuity.

Tned
09-04-2009, 03:26 PM
the major reason tha sigin bonuses came into effect was because at the time the last or maybe second to last CBA was signed the one that gave teh players FA ability the contracts were not guaranteed and some enerprising agent and GM figured out that no provision was in there to prohibit them.. Thus they were incentives to come to the teams..

At least that is what I heard when the first ones were signed.. someone overlooked it is the CBA.. and well it has been abused since..

I have never heard/read that, but I suppose it is possible. However, for at least the last two CBA's (the 2006 ammended and the previous one), signing bonuses have been specifically defined in the CBA, as to how they are spread over the life of the contract for cap purposes and how reclaimed bonuses (player retirement for instance) can offset another player's salary.

So, I am not sure about this "agent finding a loop hole" theory.


Lets hope that what dukes, although I think he is a scum bag, is true..

I'd like to see a back loaded contract with lots of incentives:


no arrests,
no wife beating parties/incidents
no more police reports filed.
bonus for TD thresholds at 10/15/20..
bonus for yardage gained 800/1200/1500.
bonus for YAC yards 200/400/600.
bonus for YPC 11/13/14..
bonus for handing the ball back to ball boys..
bonus for punting average..
bonus for not leading the NFL in balls dropped..
bonus for catching percentage 55/60/65/70


everything on there is doable.. for him and he could be a hell of a rich guy if he keeps his head on straight..

Ok, obviously, only McDaniels bashing is frowned upon.

Slick
09-04-2009, 03:27 PM
LMAO, bonus for handing the ball back to the ball boys.

Sad we have to treat him like a 13 year old, but he deserves it.

GEM
09-04-2009, 03:31 PM
I guess it scares Marshall to actually sign a doc where he has to actually work for the extra incentives, or more importantly...stay out of trouble to earn the extra incentives.

NightTrainLayne
09-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Well, if true. . and that's a stretch sometimes with Josina's articles, then the Broncos have made an offer to him right before the blow-up.

That offer was fair in financial terms but back-loaded the big $$ in order to protect the team from Marshall's potential for bad behavior.

Given his almost immediate reaction, which has resulted in a two-week suspension, I'd say the Broncos have done just about everything they can to bring him around. We've been debating for the past week whether or not McD has handled this correctly leading up to Marshall's blow-up. Now, with this tid-bit of info (if true), I'm not sure what more McD could do in order to give Marshall a new contract that rewards him for his on-the-field production and at the same time protects the Broncos from his off-the-field antics.

I would guess, that this was presented as a "you can take this now, or get something better at the end of the season if you behave yourself." That would kind of make sense what with the rest of the things we know from over the past 6 months. Let's face it. If the Broncos were wanting to give him a truck-load of guaranteed money up-front they would have done it 6 months ago.

So, there's some give and take. The Broncos want him, want to get him the money he's due, but need to protect themselves from his behavior and high potential for suspension. That still doesn't protect Brandon to the extent that he wants, but based on this, would have given him nearly a 30% raise for this season, even with all the turmoil we've had with him, with arrests and trial dates etc.

I'm just really not sure that there's anything more the Broncos could have done save giving away the farm.

Slick
09-04-2009, 03:40 PM
I guess it scares Marshall to actually sign a doc where he has to actually work for the extra incentives, or more importantly...stay out of trouble to earn the extra incentives.

Accountability?!?!?! :bolt:

Tned
09-04-2009, 03:48 PM
I fully understand where you're coming from NTL, but see it differently. I think this is more along the lines of giving a waitress a 1 penny tip (which I have never done, but have heard others claim to have done), so that you make it clear you didn't forget the tip, but don't feel her service was worth tipping for.

In the NFL, what they did is simply not done, therefore it was seen as a slap in the face. Now, whether the Broncos meant it as a slap/put him in his place move, or were truly trying to come up with an extension that worked for both parties, we will likely never know. However, since even for 'trouble makers' typically get signing bonuses and guaranteed money, I don't see this really as the Broncos making a good faith offer.

But, who knows.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2009, 03:51 PM
Un-named sources.... eh :coffee:

Ravage!!!
09-04-2009, 03:52 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

Ravage!!!
09-04-2009, 03:57 PM
Since contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL, and the owners/gms/coaches can simply fire you at any time.... WHY WOULD ANY Player play purely for incentives on a backloaded contract???

There is absolutely no benefit, and you LOSE if you have the slightest injuries.. WHICH has been one of Marshall's biggest complaints! He knows our training staff isn't worth a crap, and could have cost him his career already. Why wouldn't he take that kind of offer as a slap in the face? WHy would he take it?

No Player is going to say "sure, I'll take ALLLL the risk when you can simply dump me as soon as I'm about to be paid the big part of my contract." Won't happen.

NightTrainLayne
09-04-2009, 03:58 PM
I fully understand where you're coming from NTL, but see it differently. I think this is more along the lines of giving a waitress a 1 penny tip (which I have never done, but have heard others claim to have done), so that you make it clear you didn't forget the tip, but don't feel her service was worth tipping for.

In the NFL, what they did is simply not done, therefore it was seen as a slap in the face. Now, whether the Broncos meant it as a slap/put him in his place move, or were truly trying to come up with an extension that worked for both parties, we will likely never know. However, since even for 'trouble makers' typically get signing bonuses and guaranteed money, I don't see this really as the Broncos making a good faith offer.

But, who knows.

We see it differently, but that's no big deal. If anything it would be like giving the waitress a 10% tip today and then promising her to pay her 25% tip next week when you come back in next week if she provides better service.

Meanwhile, she only really deserved a 5% tip ($2.2 million this year for Marshall, vs. $3 million in this new deal).

I don't blame Marshall at all for not taking it, but it does show a willingness on the Broncos side to do what they CAN do for Brandon without obligating their wallet to a player who could be a liability in the future.

Slick
09-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I fully understand where you're coming from NTL, but see it differently. I think this is more along the lines of giving a waitress a 1 penny tip (which I have never done, but have heard others claim to have done), so that you make it clear you didn't forget the tip, but don't feel her service was worth tipping for.

In the NFL, what they did is simply not done, therefore it was seen as a slap in the face. Now, whether the Broncos meant it as a slap/put him in his place move, or were truly trying to come up with an extension that worked for both parties, we will likely never know. However, since even for 'trouble makers' typically get signing bonuses and guaranteed money, I don't see this really as the Broncos making a good faith offer.

But, who knows.

Brandon has made himself a special case. If this is true, I can't really blame the Broncos for trying, whether they meant it as a slap in the face or not.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2009, 04:03 PM
Brandon has made himself a special case. If this is true, I can't really blame the Broncos for trying, whether they meant it as a slap in the face or not.

I can blame them IF (if) they meant it as a slap in the face. That would be the kind of behavior that we've talked about... the inability to solve these problems rather than escalate them.

Tned
09-04-2009, 04:05 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

It was simply Marshall bashing, somewhat like the McDaniels bashing others do, but it being more socially acceptable.

Slick
09-04-2009, 04:06 PM
I can blame them IF (if) they meant it as a slap in the face. That would be the kind of behavior that we've talked about... the inability to solve these problems rather than escalate them.

Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't stoop to his (Brandon's) level.

NightTrainLayne
09-04-2009, 04:11 PM
Brandon has made himself a special case. If this is true, I can't really blame the Broncos for trying, whether they meant it as a slap in the face or not.

I often find myself in spots where a customer asks for something that I simply can't give them, but instead of just telling them no way, I give them another option. Even if I know the other option is unsatisfactory and that they won't even consider taking it, I do so as a measure of good faith to show them that I will try to do anything that I CAN do to help them out in their situation.

The Broncos don't want to give Marshall a contract until the end of the year after seeing how he does, and if he stays out of trouble.

But, as an alternative they made an offer that actually gives him an almost 30% raise this season and increases later.

They knew Brandon wasn't taking it, but they want to show him what they are willing to do now.

I have a feeling that Brandon already spent his "guaranteed" money buying houses and such, and needs it now to pay off some debts he's accrued. Why else throw such a tantrum after being told no?

Unfortunately for Brandon, that's not the Broncos problem. Maybe Brandon relied on promises from Shanny (I imagine he did), but McD and the new regime didn't make those promises, and they don't want to take the same gamble that Mike did.

Kaylore
09-04-2009, 05:06 PM
I fully understand where you're coming from NTL, but see it differently. I think this is more along the lines of giving a waitress a 1 penny tip (which I have never done, but have heard others claim to have done), so that you make it clear you didn't forget the tip, but don't feel her service was worth tipping for.

And what if the waitress punched your wife, got in a fight with the owner and then threw your food on the floor and demanded you tip them well NOW before he bring you your food because he deserves it for the past times he's brought it to you? I know what I'd tip her.

Slick
09-04-2009, 05:13 PM
All these "tipping" euphemisms made me think of this.

Z-qV9wVGb38

***caution...there are some swears***

topscribe
09-04-2009, 05:47 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

EE2CxDWm1sc

eQS6-v75qms

RrAJNQ_e8Jk

-----

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 06:02 PM
I fully understand where you're coming from NTL, but see it differently. I think this is more along the lines of giving a waitress a 1 penny tip (which I have never done, but have heard others claim to have done), so that you make it clear you didn't forget the tip, but don't feel her service was worth tipping for.

In the NFL, what they did is simply not done, therefore it was seen as a slap in the face. Now, whether the Broncos meant it as a slap/put him in his place move, or were truly trying to come up with an extension that worked for both parties, we will likely never know. However, since even for 'trouble makers' typically get signing bonuses and guaranteed money, I don't see this really as the Broncos making a good faith offer.

But, who knows.


and frankly BM has done some unprecedented things also.. no need to list them all for we are all aware of them..

I think the team deserves a little slack also..

perhaps they can give him the money in a series of roster bonuses assuring him of money IF he keeps his nose clean..

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 06:06 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

now I realize that you do not get it but YPC is for Yards per catch and that de snot mean Orton has to throw it that far just has to throw it and BM has to be able to catch it and then if he is the stud everyone says he is he can easily make 10 yard per catch.. if it is a bubble screen like jay was throwing last year then he would also get a healthy bonus for YAC that is yards after catch..:laugh:

roomemp
09-04-2009, 06:13 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

Give him a bonus for not being a dumba** . We shouldn't have to pay anything out

Tned
09-04-2009, 06:41 PM
and frankly BM has done some unprecedented things also.. no need to list them all for we are all aware of them..

I think the team deserves a little slack also..

perhaps they can give him the money in a series of roster bonuses assuring him of money IF he keeps his nose clean..

First, as to team getting slack, that's all they have gotten from virtually everyone on the forum. It's fine, I just tend to be more of a devil's advocate guy, and if I am going to make 'assumptions', I try and at least try and create the assumptions from both viewpoints, not just one.

As to your series of contract proposals, they simply make ZERO sense. A player like Marshall would have to be insane to do what you suggest. It is a a lose/lose for Marshall.

Whether he doesn't sign an extension, or signs an extension under your terms, if he gets in trouble, he gets nothing. However, if he blows off the Broncos ridiculous offer, then after this year, he will likely make $10-15 million next year. The Broncos will put the high tender on him, which is $3 million give or take, another team will make him a $30-60 million, the Broncos won't match it, the Broncos will get a 1st and 3rd (maybe a 4th), and Brandon will be a very rich man.

There is no upside for him signing a back end loaded, no signing bonus contract.

Lonestar
09-04-2009, 06:48 PM
First, as to team getting slack, that's all they have gotten from virtually everyone on the forum. It's fine, I just tend to be more of a devil's advocate guy, and if I am going to make 'assumptions', I try and at least try and create the assumptions from both viewpoints, not just one.

As to your series of contract proposals, they simply make ZERO sense. A player like Marshall would have to be insane to do what you suggest. It is a a lose/lose for Marshall.

Whether he doesn't sign an extension, or signs an extension under your terms, if he gets in trouble, he gets nothing. However, if he blows off the Broncos ridiculous offer, then after this year, he will likely make $10-15 million next year. The Broncos will put the high tender on him, which is $3 million give or take, another team will make him a $30-60 million, the Broncos won't match it, the Broncos will get a 1st and 3rd (maybe a 4th), and Brandon will be a very rich man.

There is no upside for him signing a back end loaded, no signing bonus contract.

and right now there is NO Upside to signing him to a fat guaranteed contract either..


I like option two where he gets a high tender offer and we get a #1 and 3..

that has always been my goal..

I put the list up there for yucks.. sorry you did not get it..
come on bonus for not beating his girlfriend or no more police reports.. ahahahahaahaha

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 12:11 PM
I hate Josina Anderson. Reading her articles makes me cringe.

I highly doubt anybody will be taking pix of her through her peephole, either.

She just seems like a back-alleys scrub reporter. Hard to believe anything she types.

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 12:13 PM
crowder has looked really good. He better not get cut. he is always applying pressure and such. Cutting him will turn out to be a big mistake.

Crowder bites ass!

He hasn't improved from day 1, and I CLEARLY called this a wasted draft pick.

But you and dream can follow his stats with his new team and keep us up-to-date if you want. :D

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 12:20 PM
you can't give him bonues for ypc at 11-15-20 when our QB can't throw it that far!

hahahahahaha....


...wow...did you just come up with that???

hahahahahahahah....


:coffee:

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 01:00 PM
First, as to team getting slack, that's all they have gotten from virtually everyone on the forum. It's fine, I just tend to be more of a devil's advocate guy, and if I am going to make 'assumptions', I try and at least try and create the assumptions from both viewpoints, not just one.

As to your series of contract proposals, they simply make ZERO sense. A player like Marshall would have to be insane to do what you suggest. It is a a lose/lose for Marshall.

Whether he doesn't sign an extension, or signs an extension under your terms, if he gets in trouble, he gets nothing. However, if he blows off the Broncos ridiculous offer, then after this year, he will likely make $10-15 million next year. The Broncos will put the high tender on him, which is $3 million give or take, another team will make him a $30-60 million, the Broncos won't match it, the Broncos will get a 1st and 3rd (maybe a 4th), and Brandon will be a very rich man.

There is no upside for him signing a back end loaded, no signing bonus contract.

Devil's advocate can also be construed as an instigator. It all depends on the person and how they go about it.

As for calling Jr's idea 'non-sensical'....all he did is say what the rest of us, and analysts, and ex-coaches/players/gm's have been saying. That he prolly does deserve to make a better salary, BUT he needs to be reigned in, whether if be by force or coercion.

By force, is taking steps spelled out by the NFLPA, and using incremental steps. Two weeks in preseason....4 wks in regular season....etc

By coercion, maybe it IS by offering him a new contract, where he's paid a slightly higher salary, and instead of simply adding in bonuses for going above/beyond, they add in bonuses for staying out of trouble.

I believe I've heard of other players having what can be called, successive 1 yr contracts. After each season, the player's actions of/off the field are taken into account, and if all is ok, his next yr gets kicked in and becomes guaranteed, along with any/all bonuses. Don't ask me who that was, or where I heard it....hell I could have dreampt it up, too. lol

But labeling his 'plan' as making "ZERO sense", imho, is just wrong. Though some are in jest, I'd say BM doesn't really have a leg to stand on, as far as getting a win/win contract.

Now, as I hear it, years 4/5, uncapped, means the player is a RFA. If BM plays this year, for denver, and matures and does everything right, some might say he'll be taken care of. I remember him saying earlier, that he'd like to retire a Bronco.
But almost all players are whores...and will go to the team with the biggest pockets, so it'll all come down to who flinches first.

On Sirius, some are suggesting BM play his ass off for the first 5wks, just so the team gets some over the top offers for him before the trade deadline. Guess we'll see if he listens to the same channel.

As for your last sentence, tned.....no signing bonus just means he's not paid money for signing his name. It can still include overly generous bonuses for attainable levels of proficiency....YAC/YPC/TD/TO'S/PB, etc. If he doesn't feel he can reach those levels, maybe there IS something to what Jr offers, as far as his health and/or mental being?

PS. Many players won't play under 'tags'. Even though they're being paid 'top5' money, per week, if they get injured, they get nada. Their salary isn't guaranteed, should they get injured. So at least a 'back-loaded' contract/extension would ensure him of some satisfaction....at least he could repay the money his agent loaned him at 25% interest. ;)

Think I'm correct on the above...but if not.....be gentle. :shocked:

Tned
09-05-2009, 01:28 PM
Devil's advocate can also be construed as an instigator. It all depends on the person and how they go about it.

Yes, more often than not, it isn't 'what' you say, but 'how' you say it that seperates a Devil's advocate from an instigator or even troll.


As for calling Jr's idea 'non-sensical'....all he did is say what the rest of us, and analysts, and ex-coaches/players/gm's have been saying. That he prolly does deserve to make a better salary, BUT he needs to be reigned in, whether if be by force or coercion.

Really, analysts (ex-coaches/players/GM's) have been talking about giving Marshall a contract based on how many times he hits his wife, has a police report filed, drops a pass, etc?

How about these same experts saying that B-Marsh should sign a contract, or even the Broncos offer one, similar to what the Broncos reportedly offered him?

I would be very ineterested to see links to this commentary, because I have yet to see it.



I guess I haven't seen these
By force, is taking steps spelled out by the NFLPA, and using incremental steps. Two weeks in preseason....4 wks in regular season....etc

By coercion, maybe it IS by offering him a new contract, where he's paid a slightly higher salary, and instead of simply adding in bonuses for going above/beyond, they add in bonuses for staying out of trouble.

I believe I've heard of other players having what can be called, successive 1 yr contracts. After each season, the player's actions of/off the field are taken into account, and if all is ok, his next yr gets kicked in and becomes guaranteed, along with any/all bonuses. Don't ask me who that was, or where I heard it....hell I could have dreampt it up, too. lol

See my lose/lose post for B-marsh. His agent could be sued for malpractice if he talked Marshall into signing a contract like that. There is zero upside or protection for him. Remember, this is a business for Marshall, he isn't a Broncos fan that will give up his financial future, just because he likes the Broncos, like every other player in the NFL, this is his job - not hobby.


But labeling his 'plan' as making "ZERO sense", imho, is just wrong.

Which one, the Broncos contract or Jr's proposal about including wife beating incidents, police reports, dropped passes, etc? Most likely much of it isn't even allowed by the CBA, beyond that, it simply isn't going to happen.

As to the Broncos offer, it makes zero sense as well. Marshall would never sign that type of deal and the Broncos know he would never sign that kind of deal. Of course it makes no sense.


Now, as I hear it, years 4/5, uncapped, means the player is a RFA. If BM plays this year, for denver, and matures and does everything right, some might say he'll be taken care of. I remember him saying earlier, that he'd like to retire a Bronco.

If he has another year anything close to the last two, the Broncos will be forced to take care of him, or let him go (getting a 1st and 3rd in return). If he has anything close to another 100 reception season, a team will offer him $40+ million (with at least half guaranteed), and the Broncos will have to match it or let him go.

If by some miracle, a new CBA is signed, then Marshall will get that $40+ million contract from another team and the Broncos will get nothing in return for Marshal.


But almost all players are whores...and will go to the team with the biggest pockets, so it'll all come down to who flinches first.

This isn't Madden or a movie, they aren't playing only 'for the love of the game', this is their business, and in the NFL, they need to get as much money, as quickly as possible as they are only one injury away from being cut from a team and not collecting another dime of their contract.


On Sirius, some are suggesting BM play his ass off for the first 5wks, just so the team gets some over the top offers for him before the trade deadline. Guess we'll see if he listens to the same channel.

He needs to play his ass off every week, because whether he is traded or not, he is playing for his contract, which could be one of the largest given to a receiver.


As for your last sentence, tned.....no signing bonus just means he's not paid money for signing his name. It can still include overly generous bonuses for attainable levels of proficiency....YAC/YPC/TD/TO'S/PB, etc. If he doesn't feel he can reach those levels, maybe there IS something to what Jr offers, as far as his health and/or mental being?

No, no signing bonus and no guaranteed money means that if he gets hurt, he is cut and gets diddly. It has nothing to do with believing whether he can achieve the goals. Ok, let's try and take fan emotion out of it. You are a player and you have two options.

Both contacts are woth $50 million dollars over 4 years.

Team A:
$0 signing bonus
$0 guaranteed salary
2010 $6 million
2011 $12 million
2012 $15 million
2013 $17 million

Team B:
$10 million signing bonus
$25 million guaranteed (signing bonus, plus first two years salaries)
2010 $6 million
2011 $9 million
2012 $10 million
2013 $15 million

Which team are you going to sign with?


PS. Many players won't play under 'tags'. Even though they're being paid 'top5' money, per week, if they get injured, they get nada. Their salary isn't guaranteed, should they get injured. So at least a 'back-loaded' contract/extension would ensure him of some satisfaction....at least he could repay the money his agent loaned him at 25% interest. ;)

Ok, how many players have not played under 'tags' compared to the total tagged players over say the last 5 years or so? Again, I'm curious to actually read about this fact.


Think I'm correct on the above...but if not.....be gentle. :shocked:

You weren't, but I was gentle.

nevcraw
09-05-2009, 04:07 PM
you all seem to be forgeting, ignoring or don't know that the rules stipulate the "morality clause" or behavior clauses can only recoup a very small % of the bonus.


A big reason the Broncos are pausing at revisiting Marshall's contract is collective bargaining rules would allow the team to recoup only a small portion of any guarantee through a "morals clause."

Because he has been previously suspended for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy, Marshall could be subject to a lengthy suspension with another off-field incident.

The Broncos would not have to pay Marshall any game checks for the length of his suspension, but the bulk of the money in football contracts is written into bonuses.

Let's use Roddy White as an example, as Marshall probably is. During his trip to Atlanta last week, Marshall spoke with White, the Atlanta Falcons' top receiver who recently received a six-year extension with an $18.6 million guarantee.

White recorded a combined 2,584 yards and 13 touchdowns the past two years while in that same period Marshall had 2,590 yards and 13 touchdowns.

If the Broncos gave Marshall a similar $18.6 million guarantee, they could use the morals clause to recover only $775,000 (25 percent of the prorated bonus in the particular year of his suspension).


Peanuts...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_13147198

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 04:38 PM
you all seem to be forgeting, ignoring or don't know that the rules stipulate the "morality clause" or behavior clauses can only recoup a very small % of the bonus.



Peanuts...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_13147198


why they are not going to give the house up front to him.. till he acts like an adult..

pnbronco
09-05-2009, 05:07 PM
you all seem to be forgeting, ignoring or don't know that the rules stipulate the "morality clause" or behavior clauses can only recoup a very small % of the bonus.



Peanuts...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_13147198

Thanks NC for finding that.

I understand that bonus money is the only guantee money and why players try to get the most they can, I really get it that this is how they make a living. I also understand that sports is not the real word. At some point you have to treat it a little like it is.

There is no other job that Brandon could act this way and still have one. IMO he needs to be accountable for his actions and deal with the consquences of those actions. The great part of not being part of the real world is that if he just goes out and plays and stays out of trouble he will get a great contract somewhere.

I was happy to read that they did try. Wasn't that one of the big things that poster kept complaining that the FO was not even trying to offer a contract loaded with incentives. You can't get your bonus money back. When I was his age I had to work 2 job from 8 am to 11 pm to make a living, hearing that he would only get 3million this year after all the chaos really makes me want to kick him in the shins...

TXBRONC
09-05-2009, 05:18 PM
and right now there is NO Upside to signing him to a fat guaranteed contract either..


I like option two where he gets a high tender offer and we get a #1 and 3..

that has always been my goal..

I put the list up there for yucks.. sorry you did not get it..
come on bonus for not beating his girlfriend or no more police reports.. ahahahahaahaha

This isn't baseball, football players don't get guaranteed contacts in other words the full value of their contract is not guaranteed to them. I thought you knew that?

Simple Jaded
09-05-2009, 05:31 PM
Since contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL, and the owners/gms/coaches can simply fire you at any time.... WHY WOULD ANY Player play purely for incentives on a backloaded contract???

There is absolutely no benefit, and you LOSE if you have the slightest injuries.. WHICH has been one of Marshall's biggest complaints! He knows our training staff isn't worth a crap, and could have cost him his career already. Why wouldn't he take that kind of offer as a slap in the face? WHy would he take it?

No Player is going to say "sure, I'll take ALLLL the risk when you can simply dump me as soon as I'm about to be paid the big part of my contract." Won't happen.

A contract with no signing bonus isn't going to happen, maybe that's why they offered a contract with no signing bonus, but at least they've begun to negotiate with Marshall, throwing a fit is not a smart counter offer. Neither is handling their business well at all.......

Simple Jaded
09-05-2009, 05:39 PM
you all seem to be forgeting, ignoring or don't know that the rules stipulate the "morality clause" or behavior clauses can only recoup a very small % of the bonus.



Peanuts...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_13147198

But if Marshall is suspended they should only be able to get a portion of the prorated bonus for the time he is suspended, they shouldn't get a huge portion of the entire 18.5 million back unless he is going to miss a Michael Vick kind of time, in which case they'll have a good case for getting out of the remaining contract as well.

If the Broncos think they're going to get this deal done with no up-front money they're kidding themselves, I would hope that's not the case.......

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 06:26 PM
But if Marshall is suspended they should only be able to get a portion of the prorated bonus for the time he is suspended, they shouldn't get a huge portion of the entire 18.5 million back unless he is going to miss a Michael Vick kind of time, in which case they'll have a good case for getting out of the remaining contract as well.

If the Broncos think they're going to get this deal done with no up-front money they're kidding themselves, I would hope that's not the case.......


I believe they have made good faith offers to him with little or not guaranteed money.. which would only make good business sense considering his propensity for FUBARing it up..

If he does not wish to sign one then as it stands now he is a RFA after this season perhaps two IF the provision is there and while he still makes 3.5+ the next one or two years.. they still do not tie up cap money in bonuses..

since he is 25 how many more years does he have on the bad hip and potentially two more franchise player years.. 3-4 years of him being our contracted player..

now if they tender him high he could fetch us a 1 and 3 draft choice or match the contract.. personally I'd take the 1 and 3 and laugh all the way to the draft..

again his hip still may be a bad deal and putting out 10-25 million in guaranteed money make ZERO sense to me not knowing for sure....

Tned
09-05-2009, 06:31 PM
If he is tagged, after next year (or next year if a new CBA happens soon), then he will make 10-15 million per year.

Again, signing a back end loaded, no guaranteed contract is a lose/lose for Marshall (who has been THE most underpaid WR in the league the last two years, possible the most underpaid player in all the NFL). As I said, an agent that had him sign a back end loaded, NO guaranteed money contract would be in line for a malpractice suit.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 06:41 PM
If he is tagged, after next year (or next year if a new CBA happens soon), then he will make 10-15 million per year.

Again, signing a back end loaded, no guaranteed contract is a lose/lose for Marshall (who has been THE most underpaid WR in the league the last two years, possible the most underpaid player in all the NFL). As I said, an agent that had him sign a back end loaded, NO guaranteed money contract would be in line for a malpractice suit.



yes he would be stupid to sign a back loaded contract..

But that would be all I would be offering him..

I'd rather have him couple of years as RFA and tagged than give him guaranteed money..

2009 2.1
2010 3.5
2011 3.8 or 10*
2012 12.5-15
2013 12.5-15

depending on if they can RFA for a second year..

and if a CBA is signed which I highly doubt until crunch time.. 2013..

add it up 35.4 mill for 5 years and NO guaranteed money if you take the first column

30.6 if you take the second column for 4 years.. which would make him 29-30 years old and playing on a hip that may not make it that long..and NO GUARANTEED money..


I'll take my chances.. on him flaking out and being able to cut him without paying him while he is on another team.

Simple Jaded
09-05-2009, 06:44 PM
I believe they have made good faith offers to him with little or not guaranteed money.. which would only make good business sense considering his propensity for FUBARing it up..

If he does not wish to sign one then as it stands now he is a RFA after this season perhaps two IF the provision is there and while he still makes 3.5+ the next one or two years.. they still do not tie up cap money in bonuses..

since he is 25 how many more years does he have on the bad hip and potentially two more franchise player years.. 3-4 years of him being our contracted player..

now if they tender him high he could fetch us a 1 and 3 draft choice or match the contract.. personally I'd take the 1 and 3 and laugh all the way to the draft..

again his hip still may be a bad deal and putting out 10-25 million in guaranteed money make ZERO sense to me not knowing for sure....

Of course offering little or not guaranteed money is good business, offering to let him play for free is better business, but it isn't going to happen, I would hope that they know that.......

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Of course offering little or not guaranteed money is good business, offering to let him play for free is better business, but it isn't going to happen, I would hope that they know that.......



read the post above.. yours maybe that make more sense..

pnbronco
09-05-2009, 06:50 PM
But if Marshall is suspended they should only be able to get a portion of the prorated bonus for the time he is suspended, they shouldn't get a huge portion of the entire 18.5 million back unless he is going to miss a Michael Vick kind of time, in which case they'll have a good case for getting out of the remaining contract as well.

If the Broncos think they're going to get this deal done with no up-front money they're kidding themselves, I would hope that's not the case.......

Actually Link they should. But Stink said on the radio when this whole thing started to melt down that Atlanta had still not been able to get their money back even with Vick going to jail, or maybe all that was due them, but it sounded like a lot of money.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 06:56 PM
Actually Link they should. But Stink said on the radio when this whole thing started to melt down that Atlanta had still not been able to get their money back even with Vick going to jail, or maybe all that was due them, but it sounded like a lot of money.


I believe that they are standing in line at the bankruptcy court just like the guy that he bought his house from..

will be lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar of the 25% of what they gave him....


in today economy why spend any money till you have to .. in BM's case that would be 2012-2013 or if someone is dumb enough to offer him a contract..

then you have to look at is a 1 and 3 worth more than a big WR that is stupid..

Simple Jaded
09-05-2009, 07:32 PM
yes he would be stupid to sign a back loaded contract..

But that would be all I would be offering him..

I'd rather have him couple of years as RFA and tagged than give him guaranteed money..

2009 2.1
2010 3.5
2011 3.8 or 10*
2012 12.5-15
2013 12.5-15

depending on if they can RFA for a second year..

and if a CBA is signed which I highly doubt until crunch time.. 2013..

add it up 35.4 mill for 5 years and NO guaranteed money if you take the first column

30.6 if you take the second column for 4 years.. which would make him 29-30 years old and playing on a hip that may not make it that long..and NO GUARANTEED money..


I'll take my chances.. on him flaking out and being able to cut him without paying him while he is on another team.

No player of Marshall's caliber is signing a contract like that, and if you play your best players like the Broncos have/would be in this case, what does that tell the rest of the players in the league?

The Broncos would be in a different situation with Marshall had they not F'up the Cutler situation, but they have put themselves in a position to try a little harder to make this work.......if Cutler were still here, Marshall would not be, but as it stands now, the Broncos can't afford to act as tough with Marshall as you'd like them to. It just doesn't work that way, I hope they realize that before it's too late.......

MOtorboat
09-05-2009, 07:56 PM
No player of Marshall's caliber is signing a contract like that, and if you play your best players like the Broncos have/would be in this case, what does that tell the rest of the players in the league?

The Broncos would be in a different situation with Marshall had they not F'up the Cutler situation, but they have put themselves in a position to try a little harder to make this work.......if Cutler were still here, Marshall would not be, but as it stands now, the Broncos can't afford to act as tough with Marshall as you'd like them to. It just doesn't work that way, I hope they realize that before it's too late.......

No.

This is all on Marshall and his actions. The Broncos are completely within their rights to offer an extension with those sort of stipulations, because the player is a high-risk commodity, who is under contract for the next two seasons if the Broncos so-choose.

It has NOTHING to do with Cutler. This is all on Marshall and his actions. If he wanted a better offer, he wouldn't have gotten into fights with his girlfriends, gotten arrested, had a DUI, 13 incidents with the law, missed OTAs and acted like a child during training camp. This is all on Marshall. Blaming the front office is idiotic. And yes...it does work that way.

Tned
09-05-2009, 08:47 PM
yes he would be stupid to sign a back loaded contract..

But that would be all I would be offering him..

I'd rather have him couple of years as RFA and tagged than give him guaranteed money..

2009 2.1
2010 3.5
2011 3.8 or 10*
2012 12.5-15
2013 12.5-15

depending on if they can RFA for a second year..

and if a CBA is signed which I highly doubt until crunch time.. 2013..

add it up 35.4 mill for 5 years and NO guaranteed money if you take the first column

30.6 if you take the second column for 4 years.. which would make him 29-30 years old and playing on a hip that may not make it that long..and NO GUARANTEED money..


I'll take my chances.. on him flaking out and being able to cut him without paying him while he is on another team.


I know you have mentioned this second year of RFA, but I have never seen that. Where did you read that?

I agree, that what you describe is one option for the Broncos -- a realistic option, unlike the no guarantee contract they offered.

In that scenario, unless he bombs this year or gets suspended, he won't make 3.5 in 2010. If he plays 15-16 games, then a team will sign him to a HUGE offer sheet and the Broncos will have to let him go and get the compensation or match it.

The only scenario where he gets the $3.5 next year is if he gets suspended again or hurt, or holds out and doesn't play this year. IMO.

Tned
09-05-2009, 08:53 PM
No.

This is all on Marshall and his actions. The Broncos are completely within their rights to offer an extension with those sort of stipulations, because the player is a high-risk commodity, who is under contract for the next two seasons if the Broncos so-choose.

It has NOTHING to do with Cutler. This is all on Marshall and his actions. If he wanted a better offer, he wouldn't have gotten into fights with his girlfriends, gotten arrested, had a DUI, 13 incidents with the law, missed OTAs and acted like a child during training camp. This is all on Marshall. Blaming the front office is idiotic. And yes...it does work that way.

First, Jr wasn't proposing a contract, he was describing the Broncos getting him two years as an RFA (not sure how that is possible) and then franchising him two years.

As to the contract they reportedly offered, the Bronos clearly have a 'right' to offer him it, but they knew very well he wouldn't sign it and shouldn't be surprised he was offended. No player with Marshall's skills, in his position (regardless of off field issues) would sign a contract like that. It is a lose/lose for him. Nothing guaranteed, no upside. He is better being an RFA next year.

By the way, before you flame me, I am on record (and haven't changed my position) that the Broncos shouldn't offer Marshall a contract until mid-season or after the season. Now, things may be beyond that, but before the latest blow up and suspension, I had said that while he was grossly underpaid (as a result of being much better than his fourth round selection -- no the Broncos fault), with his health and off field issues, the Broncos needed to see him producing on the field and then consider a mid-season negotiation or try and sign him right after the season.

So, I have not been a proponent of giving him a new contract now, but at the same time I think the contract the Broncos reportedly offered him is nonsense and no player in Marshall's position would sign it. Lose/Lose for Marshall.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 09:37 PM
I know you have mentioned this second year of RFA, but I have never seen that. Where did you read that?

I agree, that what you describe is one option for the Broncos -- a realistic option, unlike the no guarantee contract they offered.

In that scenario, unless he bombs this year or gets suspended, he won't make 3.5 in 2010. If he plays 15-16 games, then a team will sign him to a HUGE offer sheet and the Broncos will have to let him go and get the compensation or match it.

The only scenario where he gets the $3.5 next year is if he gets suspended again or hurt, or holds out and doesn't play this year. IMO.

I saw it quoted in an article way back and they were taking about him in particular.. was a realiabale source so I do not know if it was correct or your research was..

it also showed him making like 3.3 the first year and 3.5 the next year..2010-11..

there was a provision that without the CBA they would get like a 50% raise the first year of RFA and not so much the next year.. at the time I thought 50% was really generous so that stuck in my mind.. I also wondered if that 50% was on the total 2009 salary or jsut on teh base because alot of his 2009 salary was bonus for making his incetives the pro bowl and playing x amount of % of snaps during the year.. his base salary was 480K or so for 2009..

pretty sure it was also cut and pasted into here or I saw it here..

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 09:44 PM
No player of Marshall's caliber is signing a contract like that, and if you play your best players like the Broncos have/would be in this case, what does that tell the rest of the players in the league?

The Broncos would be in a different situation with Marshall had they not F'up the Cutler situation, but they have put themselves in a position to try a little harder to make this work.......if Cutler were still here, Marshall would not be, but as it stands now, the Broncos can't afford to act as tough with Marshall as you'd like them to. It just doesn't work that way, I hope they realize that before it's too late.......

it would tell them that he is a screw up and the Broncos are not stupid enough to offer him the moon, when he clearly has not shown any adult behavior off the field and now it seems not even on the field..

it would tell them they would be paid for good playing and not nonsense.. IF they are a good character player then they would be surrounded by a TEAM of others that share their work ethic..

as for the cutler fiasco we will have to agree to disagree about who was at fault there as neither of us are going top change our minds on that one..:salute:

Tned
09-05-2009, 09:55 PM
I saw it quoted in an article way back and they were taking about him in particular.. was a realiabale source so I do not know if it was correct or your research was..

it also showed him making like 3.3 the first year and 3.5 the next year..2010-11..

there was a provision that without the CBA they would get like a 50% raise the first year of RFA and not so much the next year.. at the time I thought 50% was really generous so that stuck in my mind.. I also wondered if that 50% was on the total 2009 salary or jsut on teh base because alot of his 2009 salary was bonus for making his incetives the pro bowl and playing x amount of % of snaps during the year.. his base salary was 480K or so for 2009..

pretty sure it was also cut and pasted into here or I saw it here..

I think the reality is the CBA may not cover it. If it is considered an uncapped year, like 2010, then Marshall is a free agent. There is nothing in the CBA, that I have seen, that extends the RFA for a second uncapped year.

Basically, he would be a FA next year if they signed a new CBA with the same FA rules. If next year is the 'uncapped' year, no CBA, then players become FA's after their fifth year (compared to normally after their fourth year). I have seen nothing that says that each year the number of years extends.

The only way I could think of that possibly happening is if in 'uncapped years' players don't get a year of service towards FA eligibility. Meaning, that if they didn't sign a new CBA for five years, but played them all as uncapped years with no contract between players and union, that all those years would fail to count towards free agency. I haven't seen that anywhere in the CBA, but I also haven't looked for it, but that is the only scenario I can see where he could be an RFA for two years.

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 10:49 PM
Yes, more often than not, it isn't 'what' you say, but 'how' you say it that seperates a Devil's advocate from an instigator or even troll.
Really, analysts (ex-coaches/players/GM's) have been talking about giving Marshall a contract based on how many times he hits his wife, has a police report filed, drops a pass, etc? Hoping, tned, you're kidding...as most on here realize Jr was being facetious...and I acknowledged that, as well. Shame.

How about these same experts saying that B-Marsh should sign a contract, or even the Broncos offer one, similar to what the Broncos reportedly offered him?

I would be very ineterested to see links to this commentary, because I have yet to see it.I don't know what you're wanting a link to here, tned. Jr's facetiousness? :confused:


See my lose/lose post for B-marsh. His agent could be sued for malpractice if he talked Marshall into signing a contract like that. There is zero upside or protection for him. Remember, this is a business for Marshall, he isn't a Broncos fan that will give up his financial future, just because he likes the Broncos, like every other player in the NFL, this is his job - not hobby.

Which one, the Broncos contract or Jr's proposal about including wife beating incidents, police reports, dropped passes, etc? Most likely much of it isn't even allowed by the CBA, beyond that, it simply isn't going to happen.

As to the Broncos offer, it makes zero sense as well. Marshall would never sign that type of deal and the Broncos know he would never sign that kind of deal. Of course it makes no sense. Well, it doesn't matter, since he's still under contract.


If he has another year anything close to the last two, the Broncos will be forced to take care of him, or let him go (getting a 1st and 3rd in return). If he has anything close to another 100 reception season, a team will offer him $40+ million (with at least half guaranteed), and the Broncos will have to match it or let him go.

If by some miracle, a new CBA is signed, then Marshall will get that $40+ million contract from another team and the Broncos will get nothing in return for Marshal. Hmmm....auspiciously worded as a 'sure thing', much as jr's was, that you kinda attacked. You're making some claims that, frankly, are no more than a guess, yes?

This isn't Madden or a movie, they aren't playing only 'for the love of the game', this is their business, and in the NFL, they need to get as much money, as quickly as possible as they are only one injury away from being cut from a team and not collecting another dime of their contract.

He needs to play his ass off every week, because whether he is traded or not, he is playing for his contract, which could be one of the largest given to a receiver.Again....only your opinion, tned. Some actually think there are other wr's out there that are actually BETTER (:eek:) than Bmarsh....not to mention 'safer'.


No, no signing bonus and no guaranteed money means that if he gets hurt, he is cut and gets diddly. It has nothing to do with believing whether he can achieve the goals. Ok, let's try and take fan emotion out of it. You are a player and you have two options. As far as I heard, there's no SIGNING BONUS...which means no free meal. Clearly, most of the bonus possibilities would be attainable. It'd just mean he'd have to actually EARN the extra cash. And this crying about "one hit from ending their career" crap is over the top. How many actualy have this happen to them on an annual basis? I know it's thrown around alot, by unhappy players and their fans, but reallly. These days, with money being thrown around, I'd say that's not as prevalent as in the past. At the least, maybe these guys that are playing a game for a living should be a little more intelligent with the money when they DO get it.


Ok, how many players have not played under 'tags' compared to the total tagged players over say the last 5 years or so? Again, I'm curious to actually read about this fact.
You weren't, but I was gentle.

Well, for one thing, tned, I don't know how one would find that information out.
For another, I should have said they 'don't WANT TO' play under the tag. Clearly, you'll agree with that.

MOtorboat
09-05-2009, 10:55 PM
By the way, before you flame me

What in the world would I flame you for. You damn near agree with me.

Unless, your trying to start a fight, which judging off of your actions in the last month, I wouldn't be all that surprised...

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 10:57 PM
I think the reality is the CBA may not cover it. If it is considered an uncapped year, like 2010, then Marshall is a free agent. There is nothing in the CBA, that I have seen, that extends the RFA for a second uncapped year.

Basically, he would be a FA next year if they signed a new CBA with the same FA rules. If next year is the 'uncapped' year, no CBA, then players become FA's after their fifth year (compared to normally after their fourth year). I have seen nothing that says that each year the number of years extends.

The only way I could think of that possibly happening is if in 'uncapped years' players don't get a year of service towards FA eligibility. Meaning, that if they didn't sign a new CBA for five years, but played them all as uncapped years with no contract between players and union, that all those years would fail to count towards free agency. I haven't seen that anywhere in the CBA, but I also haven't looked for it, but that is the only scenario I can see where he could be an RFA for two years.

I have been searching the forum for posts or article quoting it the best I can come up with now are some of my old posts I went back to early 09.. But I know I saw it posted or was an article..

well it will not matter till 2011 or so.. I suspect IF it was correct that we will see it again..

IF he gets his act together this year it is all moot.. because we will either RFA him with the highest tender.. getting a happy camper by matching or two really good draft choices..

if he does not get his act together well we are not out any guaranteed BIG Bucks..

Tned
09-05-2009, 11:02 PM
What in the world would I flame you for. You damn near agree with me.

I know, which is why I don't know why you often do flame me.


Unless, your trying to start a fight, which judging off of your actions in the last month, I wouldn't be all that surprised...

See first response.

Tned
09-05-2009, 11:07 PM
IF he gets his act together this year it is all moot.. because we will either RFA him with the highest tender.. getting a happy camper by matching or two really good draft choices..

if he does not get his act together well we are not out any guaranteed BIG Bucks..

This is the way I see it. If he plays well (really, just plays all season and doesn't get in trouble), he gets a big contract from us or someone else. If, it's someone else, we get great draft compensation.

If he gets in trouble, holds out or whatever, then we have options (still high tender him and pay him $3 million, trade him, release him, etc.)

The only place where we could get burned in this approach (letting him play this year, then deal with a trade/contract), is if a new CBA is worked out quickly and Marshall is a full FA next year, which means we likely lose him with nothing in return except possibly a compensatory pick.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 11:12 PM
This is the way I see it. If he plays well (really, just plays all season and doesn't get in trouble), he gets a big contract from us or someone else. If, it's someone else, we get great draft compensation.

If he gets in trouble, holds out or whatever, then we have options (still high tender him and pay him $3 million, trade him, release him, etc.)

The only place where we could get burned in this approach (letting him play this year, then deal with a trade/contract), is if a new CBA is worked out quickly and Marshall is a full FA next year, which means we likely lose him with nothing in return except possibly a compensatory pick.


I do not believe unless gaffney, Mc Kinney, Jackson all bomb that he will be a bronco next year.. I think this FO is tired of the Bovine Excrement that he has caused.. regardless that he is another Pro bowl year.. I would think they will hype him as much as possible to get his value on the moon..

the new scheme does not require a BM, he is a nice to have but not worth the issues between his ears.. IMHO

Tned
09-05-2009, 11:12 PM
Hoping, tned, you're kidding...as most on here realize Jr was being facetious...and I acknowledged that, as well. Shame.
I don't know what you're wanting a link to here, tned. Jr's facetiousness? :confused:

Well, it doesn't matter, since he's still under contract.

Hmmm....auspiciously worded as a 'sure thing', much as jr's was, that you kinda attacked. You're making some claims that, frankly, are no more than a guess, yes?
Again....only your opinion, tned. Some actually think there are other wr's out there that are actually BETTER (:eek:) than Bmarsh....not to mention 'safer'.

As far as I heard, there's no SIGNING BONUS...which means no free meal. Clearly, most of the bonus possibilities would be attainable. It'd just mean he'd have to actually EARN the extra cash. And this crying about "one hit from ending their career" crap is over the top. How many actualy have this happen to them on an annual basis? I know it's thrown around alot, by unhappy players and their fans, but reallly. These days, with money being thrown around, I'd say that's not as prevalent as in the past. At the least, maybe these guys that are playing a game for a living should be a little more intelligent with the money when they DO get it.



Well, for one thing, tned, I don't know how one would find that information out.
For another, I should have said they 'don't WANT TO' play under the tag. Clearly, you'll agree with that.

I don't know what to say to all of this, other than to remind you that you responded to my post, which was responding to Jr's post. In your post, you defended Jr's post as if it was a serious option, hence I responded in kind, pointing out why it wasn't.

As to your assertion that I don't believe there are any WR's out there better than Marshall. Where have I ever said this???

Again, just to clarify my point, since it seemed to have been lost. I am just trying to explain why all of these "give him nothing guaranteed until he proves himself" contracts, whether the ones proposed by you guys, or reportedly offered by the Broncos, is simply not the type of contract a player with Marshall's talent, on the verge of free agency would sign.

You guys can go on and on about how he needs to prove himself, and maybe he does to Broncos fans and management, but the rest of the league will be salivating at a chance to sign him.

Tned
09-05-2009, 11:15 PM
I do not believe unless gaffney, Mc Kinney, Jackson all bomb that he will be a bronco next year.. I think this FO is tired of the Bovine Excrement that he has caused.. regardless that he is another Pro bowl year.. I would think they will hype him as much as possible to get his value on the moon..

the new scheme does not require a BM, he is a nice to have but not worth the issues between his ears.. IMHO

I'll agree to disagree on whether the scheme needs him. We have seen nothing yet that says they don't need him. Quite the contrary in fact.

As to whether he will be here next year, there are so many factors in play, and so much time between now and then, I doubt even McDaniels could make that call right now, even if he was so inclined to.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 11:15 PM
I don't know what to say to all of this, other than to remind you that you responded to my post, which was responding to Jr's post. In your post, you defended Jr's post as if it was a serious option, hence I responded in kind, pointing out why it wasn't.

As to your assertion that I don't believe there are any WR's out there better than Marshall. Where have I ever said this???

Again, just to clarify my point, since it seemed to have been lost. I am just trying to explain why all of these "give him nothing guaranteed until he proves himself" contracts, whether the ones proposed by you guys, or reportedly offered by the Broncos, is simply not the type of contract a player with Marshall's talent, on the verge of free agency would sign.

You guys can go on and on about how he needs to prove himself, and maybe he does to Broncos fans and management, but the rest of the league will be salivating at a chance to sign him.


and when they do we get a couple of top picks 1 and 3 works for me..

Dean
09-05-2009, 11:16 PM
Here is one article about the uncapped year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html#ixzz0Q99D8ZQ3


Hope that one of them has what you want. I have them bookmarked but haven't read them in a while.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 11:20 PM
Here is one article about the uncapped year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html#ixzz0Q99D8ZQ3

Thanks for the info.. not the one I was looking for but perhaps it clarifies the issue..

Peter King > INSIDE THE NFL


The owners opted out of the labor deal at the best time possible Story Highlights
There is huge motivation for both sides to do a deal
If there is no cap in 2010, then the advantage shifts decidedly to the owners
This does have the potential to be a long, arduous fight




If there is no salary cap in 2010, Braylon Edwards and a number of other potential free agents could pay the price.



The NFL owners' early opt out of their labor agreement with the players is one of the best things that could happen to the process. That isn't to say that this won't be a long and arduous fight between the players, who believe they deserve their rightful share of the pie, and the league, which has some legitimate financial concerns with small market franchises lagging behind the big boys, but timing was a key element here.

"This is actually fine," NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw told me Tuesday. "We knew [the opt out] was coming. You don't want it happening in November, in the middle of the football season. Now we're on the clock and hopefully this will help us get close to an agreement [before the contract expires in 2011]."

At the end of a short conversation late Tuesday morning, Upshaw sounded as optimistic as a welcome wagon hostess. "Don't worry," he said. "It'll get done." Likewise, the league said it would negotiate with the NFLPA "without threat of interruption [of games] for at least the next three seasons."

There is motivation for both sides to do a deal. From the owners' perspective, they don't want to be seen as the stewards of the game who killed the golden goose. From the players' side, they know that if they get to an uncapped year in 2010 without a new agreement -- the NFL is assured to have its salary cap intact for at least this season and next -- then the advantage shifts decidedly to the owners.

When the current CBA was put in place in 2006, the owners installed an onerous set of guidelines if either side were to opt out of the agreement: those guidelines would be in place for the 2010 season only. The highlights:

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

Upshaw told me that if the players have to play under those conditions in 2010, that would be the last year they would do so. He said in 2011 and beyond the players would be free agents whenever their contracts expired. That, obviously, is a scenario the owners would loathe.

There is no question that the key point, the deadline point that really means something, now comes in March 2010. In early March of every offseason, the NFL begins its new year and institutes a new salary cap number for teams to live by that season. If there is no deal between owners and players by then, an uncapped year would ensue. Some owners might start paying 30-year-old unsigned veterans silly money then, but most wouldn't. As Upshaw said Tuesday, the spring of 2010 is the point both sides need an agreement to be made by.

"What you have to look at in 2010 is, 'What is the alternative?' " Upshaw said, referring to March 2010 coming and going without a new labor agreement. "If we ever get beyond [the uncapped year], we're not going back [to a salary cap system.]."

Let the saber rattling begin. The NFL and the union have 22 months to be smart.

Lonestar
09-05-2009, 11:28 PM
I think it must have been a local (DEN) article because it made an example of Marshall like this one exampled braylon E..

showing the dollar values per year..2009-2010-2011 but did not talk so much about franchise money/years..

not matter worrying about it now..

because unless he does not show up at practice tomorrow it could be moot.

Tned
09-05-2009, 11:50 PM
I think it must have been a local (DEN) article because it made an example of Marshall like this one exampled braylon E..

showing the dollar values per year..2009-2010-2011 but did not talk so much about franchise money/years..

not matter worrying about it now..

because unless he does not show up at practice tomorrow it could be moot.

I think that article above said it all. Upshaw said that while 2010 would have severe restrictions, if there is no CBA, from 2011 on, players will be FA's as their contracts expire.


All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

Upshaw told me that if the players have to play under those conditions in 2010, that would be the last year they would do so. He said in 2011 and beyond the players would be free agents whenever their contracts expired. That, obviously, is a scenario the owners would loathe.

rcsodak
09-05-2009, 11:54 PM
I know you have mentioned this second year of RFA, but I have never seen that. Where did you read that?

I agree, that what you describe is one option for the Broncos -- a realistic option, unlike the no guarantee contract they offered.

In that scenario, unless he bombs this year or gets suspended, he won't make 3.5 in 2010. If he plays 15-16 games, then a team will sign him to a HUGE offer sheet and the Broncos will have to let him go and get the compensation or match it.

The only scenario where he gets the $3.5 next year is if he gets suspended again or hurt, or holds out and doesn't play this year. IMO.

Year 4/5 players would be RFA's, instead of UFA's, under a non-capped season. That, coming from mr MMQB, himself.

Tned
09-06-2009, 12:01 AM
Year 4/5 players would be RFA's, instead of UFA's, under a non-capped season. That, coming from mr MMQB, himself.

Which would still mean that Marshall would only be an RFA in 2010, as he would be a 6th year player in 2011.

Lonestar
09-06-2009, 01:47 AM
Which would still mean that Marshall would only be an RFA in 2010, as he would be a 6th year player in 2011.


if he was drafted in 06 he would have to have 6 years before he is FA in that senario .. not starting the 6th year, but ending the 6th .. but then I could be using new math also..

who the hell cares at this point I'm going to bed..

Tned
09-06-2009, 12:32 PM
if he was drafted in 06 he would have to have 6 years before he is FA in that senario .. not starting the 6th year, but ending the 6th .. but then I could be using new math also..

RC didn't provide a link, but I assume he is referring to Peter King as the MMQB, but don't know.


Year 4/5 players would be RFA's, instead of UFA's, under a non-capped season. That, coming from mr MMQB, himself.

RC, said that King said year 4/5 players would be RFA's.

This is exactly what the CBA says. In capped years, a player is a UFA in their 5th year (after 4 years of service). In uncapped years, a player is a UFA in their 6th year (after 5 years of service).