Salary cap will influence Broncos' cuts

[Denver Native (Carol)]

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- For many who currently have lockers inside the Denver Broncos' complex, things get down to the vocational nitty gritty this week.

For months they have shown up to work each day, part of a team. They've worked in the weight room, eaten in the cafeteria and rubbed shoulders with their far more famous teammates.

After this week, the Broncos will send almost half of them on their way.

The Broncos will practice against the Houston Texans this week, play the Texans Saturday night and then cut at least 37 players from their current roster in a span of seven days with a fourth preseason game sandwiched in there somewhere.

rest - http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/8079/salary-cap-will-influence-broncos-cuts

[Shazam!]

...I think that's true for 31 other teams too.

Not knocking you Carol, I appreciate all your additions.

[Joel]

What sucks is none of the guys I WANT to cut have huge contracts, and the article has us ~$1.5 million over the cap even with the space rolled over from last year (and, btw, $3.3 million is almost an order of magnitude less than the number many posters swore we had at the end of last season.) Trimming the difference and leaving enough space for any midseason flexibility therefore make it likely someone I really like will be really gone come Opening Day. Anyone have a list of the current players current contracts, with this years cap hit for releasing them?

How do we have $2 million of dead money for DRC? I though the contract he signed voided the day after the SB unless we gave him a new one; how can we have a 2014 cap hit for a player whose contract ended in 2013? And since we do, why didn't we give him that $2 million plus whatever we're giving Talib? I know which one I'd rather have.

[MOtorboat]

Re: DRC

Probably a deferred cap hit.

[Joel]

Re: DRC

Probably a deferred cap hit.
How would that work? Is it a signing bonus or something? I never did really grasp how his "2 year contract that voids if he's on the roster at the end of Year 1" deal worked.

[MOtorboat]

How would that work? Is it a signing bonus or something? I never did really grasp how his "2 year contract that voids if he's on the roster at the end of Year 1" deal worked.

It would have to be a signing bonus. Remember all the bonuses we were paying off after Shanahan left? Same deal. I don't KNOW any of this for sure as fact, that's just my guess.

[Joel]

Statements like "if we keep 8 DL" normally enrage me because DTs=/=DEs: We'd have NO pass rush with 8 DTs and 0 DEs, and couldn't stop the run with 0 DTs and 8 DEs.

HOWEVER, it's somewhat justified here because the FO had the perception to spot Wolfe and Jackson plus the luck to be able to sign them. Both are "big" enough to stuff the run as LDEs in our base so Miller (who's no slouch against the run) can focus on QBs, yet quick and fast enough they can and do rush the passer well from the inside when Miller moves to DE in nickel.

In effect, the same player is a solid strong side DE who can get past TEs to take down powerful RBs AND an equally solid UT who can slip past Gs to take down QBs—and there's TWO of them! That kind of high level versatility is much bigger than anyone position, and we've not only got a player like that, but a backup for him. That does allow the luxury of adding 3 pure DTs and 3 DEs who each do one of two very different things very well, while ensuring those elite specialists cost no flexibility.

Whatever else one might say against Fox (and I've criticized him as much as anyone,) his "DL" judgement is vindicated by the unlikely reality that we released last years team sack leader yet STILL may have the NFLs best, most versatile and deepest front four. Given how weak it was before Fox, and how long it had been, that's an accomplishment.

[Dapper Dan]

...I think that's true for 31 other teams too.

Not knocking you Carol, I appreciate all your additions.

Not really. I'm sure many teams are comfortable enough under the cap to cut the worst players.

[Shazam!]

...I think that's true for 31 other teams too.

Not knocking you Carol, I appreciate all your additions.

Not really. I'm sure many teams are comfortable enough under the cap to cut the worst players.

Just saying according to the title of the article.

[Ziggy]

Re: DRC

Probably a deferred cap hit.

DRC was signed for 2 years with the 2nd year being automatically voided. It was Elway's way of deferring his cap hit over 2 years while only keeping him for one. As far as I know he's the only player that Elway has done that with, which is good.

[VonDoom]

Also, I don't think any of us regular people (as in, people who aren't associated with the Broncos) truly knows the salary cap number. OvertheCap has us with $6.4 million in cap space right now. I don't know if that's accurate, but it directly contrasts the ESPN article posted here:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

[Joel]

Also, I don't think any of us regular people (as in, people who aren't associated with the Broncos) truly knows the salary cap number.
That's my impression; I could've sworn the same ESPN was the one at the end of last season saying we had $20 million in rollover money this year; now it's $3 million? Congressional math? :tongue:

[Cugel]

The question really comes down to if the team keeps just eight players here, which is exactly what they did last season. Part of the rationale, from a personnel standpoint, in keeping eight is that linebacker Von Miller is in one of the defensive end spots for most of the team's pass-rush looks.

Start counting and it doesn't take long to find eight that would make a quality rotation. Combine some common sense with the way they've practiced and played the first two preseason games and DeMarcus Ware, Terrance Knighton, Sylvester Williams and Derek Wolfe are the starters in the base defense.

Malik Jackson, Quanterus Smith and Marvin Austin project as the next three. That could leave, if the number is eight, Mitch Unrein, Kevin Vickerson and others scrapping for a final spot. Vickerson did not play in Sunday's preseason game in Santa Clara, California, as he continues to work all the way back from his hip injury of 2013.

I think Vickerson is a good candidate to start the season under the new IR rules that permit you to bring one player back from IR during the season if he starts on the 53 man roster. He'd have to miss the first six games, but I don't think they want to outright release him, since he'd provide quality backup if healthy.

Yet he's not really recovered from his hip injury from last year and there's no indication he'd be ready to start the season. Moving him to IR would free up his salary under the cap, I believe.

What this article is saying is that teams can keep up to 10 guys on the practice squad this year, but the Broncos might only keep 8 for salary cap reasons.

[Cugel]

DRC was signed for 2 years with the 2nd year being automatically voided. It was Elway's way of deferring his cap hit over 2 years while only keeping him for one. As far as I know he's the only player that Elway has done that with, which is good.

Thus, the pro-rated portion of his signing bonus gets accelerated against this year's cap, even though his contract termination option is exercised after year one. I.E. dead-cap space.

[VonDoom]

I haven't heard much about Big Vick this offseason, which I imagine isn't good. He can be a beast when healthy, but I have no idea when that will be. IR with return designation is certainly possible, like you said.

[underrated29]

From everything I have tracked and read we are a lot closer to that one site that puts us at 6.5 mil....I thought it was 5.2 mil but whatever....Espn is dumb. Remember, only the top 53 count against the cap (from what I remember)

[Joel]

I think Vickerson is a good candidate to start the season under the new IR rules that permit you to bring one player back from IR during the season if he starts on the 53 man roster. He'd have to miss the first six games, but I don't think they want to outright release him, since he'd provide quality backup if healthy.

Yet he's not really recovered from his hip injury from last year and there's no indication he'd be ready to start the season. Moving him to IR would free up his salary under the cap, I believe.

What this article is saying is that teams can keep up to 10 guys on the practice squad this year, but the Broncos might only keep 8 for salary cap reasons.
Is that in ADDITION to the previously existing IR-designated-to-return during the season, or INSTEAD? I thought about something like that, but then thought better of it because then we wouldn't have that option if some other key player had a long term injury during the season but looked likely to recover before it ended. As I recall, teams can only do that with one guy

If memory serves, that's why we didn't put Vickerson on designated-to-return IR last year: We'd already done that with someone else (I wanna say Walton, which was even more annoying, because we just cut him when he came back anyway.) If we can only do it once, it needs to be for someone we're sure will be a key contributor, because we may NEED it for one down the road.

[Cugel]

Is that in ADDITION to the previously existing IR-designated-to-return during the season, or INSTEAD? I thought about something like that, but then thought better of it because then we wouldn't have that option if some other key player had a long term injury during the season but looked likely to recover before it ended. As I recall, teams can only do that with one guy

If memory serves, that's why we didn't put Vickerson on designated-to-return IR last year: We'd already done that with someone else (I wanna say Walton, which was even more annoying, because we just cut him when he came back anyway.) If we can only do it once, it needs to be for someone we're sure will be a key contributor, because we may NEED it for one down the road.

You only get 1 IR designated to return during the season, after game 6 if I'm not mistaken. So, they would need to be sure that Vickerson is worth designating for IR, and be reasonably certain that he was going to be ready at some point during the season.

But, it would free up some roster space and they would only have to cut a player when Vickerson returned. They might do this for 2 reasons:

1. If it would allow them to have more cap space.
2. If they don't want to keep a spot open on the 53 man roster for a player who's injured and they're not sure when he's going to be ready.

I don't know if Vick is that player, but he played well last year and he's a veteran who would be good if healthy, so they'd probably like to keep him rather than just release him.

[Joel]

Well, he's at least as valuable now as Walton was last year, I just don't want to find ourselves in the same position that left us in then: A guy like Vickerson gets hurt, but might be able to come back—and we have to put him on season-ending IR anyway because we already used the designated-to-return spot for a guy who may never play another down for us. Or, alternatively, forced to sign someone who can take a starters spot for a month or two while keeping the starter and releasing someone else to stay at 53.

I guess we could always try to PS someone to make room, assuming there are still spots there. Tough call, I'm glad isn't mine, because there are big potential downsides WHATEVER we do.