Broncos Mailbag: Is Denver's 13-3 record with Peyton Manning an omen?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

one question/answer from article:


Think it's in the cards for Peyton Manning to restructure (give back a bunch of money) his remaining contract to free up some cash for upcoming free agents, such as Eric Decker?
--Sam Butler, Loveland

First, Manning at $20 million might be the most underpaid player on the team. I'm sure moving money around is a possibility if it would help. But I don't think a guy coming off a record-setting passing season should take a pay cut.

I also don't think a Manning restructure will be necessary. The Broncos will have enough money cleared to re-sign Decker -- so long as the two sides agree on contract value. Remember, it took a while for the Broncos to reach contract accord with left tackle Ryan Clady.

A franchise tag is not an option for Decker, by the way, because the expected salary would be around $10.5 million. That's based off the top five-paid receivers in the league. Decker is expected to command a new contract in the $8 million-a-year neighborhood.

rest - many more questions/answers

http://www.denverpost.com/broncosmailbag/ci_24823986/broncos-mailbag-denver-record-peyton-manning

[Slick]

I thought Decker could command 8 a year. I wonder if Denver will be willing to go that high for him.

Hearing that a player who makes 20 million a year referred to as "underpaid" just blows my mind.

[Dapper Dan]

6+6+6=18

Hail Peyton!

[Denver Native (Carol)]

There are many other interesting questions/answers in regards to other players in the article.

[silkamilkamonico]

Interesting article - couple notes

- I said this at the time and I think it is being hidden in all this talk about Denver's run - Miller more than likely will not be ready to go at the beginning of next season, and I think it's even more than likely he will not be anywhere near his explosive self right away, especially mentally. I hope fans think hard bout this before throwing him under the bus when he does come back, because I would put money on him eventually becoming the same player he's been, if not right away.

- Again. what does signing Decker to 8 million a year do to Demaryous Thomas next year, and Julius Thomas the following year?

[Joel]

Interesting article - couple notes

- I said this at the time and I think it is being hidden in all this talk about Denver's run - Miller more than likely will not be ready to go at the beginning of next season, and I think it's even more than likely he will not be anywhere near his explosive self right away, especially mentally. I hope fans think hard bout this before throwing him under the bus when he does come back, because I would put money on him eventually becoming the same player he's been, if not right away.
I'm still worried that looseness Miller said he had in his knee before the ACL tear was an existing tear in the recently discovered anterolateral ligament, so I'll wait, pray and see. If that IS what happened and they don't repair that, too, Miller could end up with ANOTHER torn ACL either next year or the following one, and that would probably end his career and salary concerns with it. There's a reason repaired ACLs are so unpredictable, and all signs point to that reason being the anterolateral ligament doctors suspected existed but could never find.


- Again. what does signing Decker to 8 million a year do to Demaryous Thomas next year, and Julius Thomas the following year?
I can only speculate like everyone else, but it's hard to imagine the FO would spare no expense to sign Decker at the the greater expense of losing DT.

Meanwhile, the response to the question on why Mannings record-smashing season didn't earn a higher rating than Rodgers' record mark—nor even Mannings own 2004 rating—was amusing:
The passer rating gets ridiculed because it's easy to poke fun as something not easily understood. Nick Foles has a higher passer rating this season (119.2) than Peyton Manning (115.1).
The PRS is EASILY understood; that's why the NFL deliberately confuses its calculation to hide its fatal flaws. Rather than the official method, the easy way figure PR is

100*(20Comp+Yds+80TDs-100Ints)​ +50/24
24*Att


One can even multiply the constant by 2Att/2Att to get a single denominator, but it looks weird and it's easier to just add 2.0833... at the end. The only real trick is remembering the NFL sets upper and lower bounds on all bonuses, so 0≤PR≤158.3, but QBs rarely finish below or above the bound of any category for a single game, and no qualifier (i.e. those averaging 14+ passes over 16 games) EVER exceeds any bound for a full season.

The PRS is criticized for perceived but nonexistent complexity because that's preferable to criticism for sheer stupidity. It's a completion percentage system that gives bonuses for TDs and (larger) penalties for Ints, and that's why guys like Foles can finish with better PRs than a record-breaking QB like Manning.

All you need to know to see what's wrong with the PRS is that a QB who throws 3 yd passes all day and NEVER scores will have a 97.9 PR as long as he never misses. He'll never get a first down, and his punters average will be more critical than his completion percentage, but, my, what a great PR! The PRS wasn't designed to make the West Coast Offenses safe short passes look good, but couldn't do the job better if it HAD been.

The PRS is crap, not because it's complicated (it's just the opposite, however much smoke and mirrors the NFL uses to conceal its failings,) but simply because it's crap. Using the formula, most people could figure a QB rating for a game or season about as accurately as the one decimal place in the official listings. It'd still be crap, but at least they'd know WHY. ;)