PDA

View Full Version : Manning is not greedy -



Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-03-2015, 10:21 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_27618159/paige-broncos-quarterback-peyton-manning-will-be-back

This article by Woody is worth reading. He discusses the inaccuracies of calling Manning greedy.

Northman
03-03-2015, 12:41 PM
Um ok.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-03-2015, 01:27 PM
Um ok.

What's the sarcasm for? I posted this because there is a theme amongst some of the posters that Manning is too greedy to restructure, and that there is no precedent for it. This article dispels that myth.

DenBronx
03-03-2015, 01:30 PM
Hmmm not what I've gathered at all. He doesn't have a history of taking less money....ever.


This would be the time to do it. If he wants to win...doesn't get much clearer then that. If he does restructure then I really hope JT or Knighton is in that plan. We have to keep one of those guys.

Slick
03-03-2015, 02:05 PM
I hate the idea of restructuring Manning's contract. Just pay him in full and get it over with.

BroncoWave
03-03-2015, 02:17 PM
I hate the idea of restructuring Manning's contract. Just pay him in full and get it over with.

I disagree. If we are going to keep him, that means we HAVE to try to win this year. If a restructure leaves dead money on the cap, so be it. If we lose half our free agents, it kinda defeats the purpose of bringing him back.

DenBronx
03-03-2015, 02:42 PM
I hate the idea of restructuring Manning's contract. Just pay him in full and get it over with.

Why do you hate that idea when we have been embarrassed 3 years in a row come playoff time?

broncohead
03-03-2015, 02:44 PM
Why doesn't everyone take a pay cut?

Slick
03-03-2015, 03:01 PM
I disagree. If we are going to keep him, that means we HAVE to try to win this year. If a restructure leaves dead money on the cap, so be it. If we lose half our free agents, it kinda defeats the purpose of bringing him back.

I don't think it's possible to put together a more talented roster than the ones he's had in the last 3 years so I guess I don't see the point.


Why do you hate that idea when we have been embarrassed 3 years in a row come playoff time?

I don't want to be on the hook for money owed to him when he's no longer playing. I accept that Denver isn't winning a trophy with Manning. He'll win some games, set more personal records and flame out in January like always.

BroncoWave
03-03-2015, 03:34 PM
I don't think it's possible to put together a more talented roster than the ones he's had in the last 3 years so I guess I don't see the point.

Maybe not, but if he doesn't restructure, then we will have a LESS talented roster than in years past, and that will likely get us nowhere fast. If that's how we're gonna do it, then I don't see the point in bringing him back at all. To me, the only way bringing him back makes sense is if we can do it for cheap and reload the roster for one more run at it.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 03:40 PM
Why doesn't everyone take a pay cut?

Now that would take a true miracle.

BroncoWave
03-03-2015, 03:42 PM
For the record, this is why I'm not a huge proponent of bringing him back in the first place. We either have to gut our roster to do it, which hurts us in the long run, or he takes a paycut and we're able to still field a competitive team, but one that will still (far more likely than not) flame out in January. I've said all along it makes more sense to me to see what Brock has now while he is still under contract, but I've accepted that that ship has sailed and we likely have Manning back. Given that, I think a restructure is the only logical way to go about that.

Ravage!!!
03-03-2015, 03:49 PM
ITs a QB league. Manning single HANDedly made us Super Bowl contenders by being on the roster. Get rid of Manning, get rid of your chances. Can we possibly find another QB to be 'that guy'... of course. But it takes TIME.. and can take a very long time. Like so many other aspects in life... in sports.. you HAVE to strike while the iron is hot, and its not any hotter than it is now. NOW is the time to make that run/shot for the ring. Brock isn't going to do it. Moving forward with another QB can come later, as it will ALWAYS be an option. Simply accepting defeat and accepting a "rebuilding time" doesn't make sense when you have the personnel to make a serious run. We can make a serious run because we have the QB to make that run. Without that QB, we aren't contenders. It's that simple.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 03:59 PM
ITs a QB league. Manning single HANDedly made us Super Bowl contenders by being on the roster. Get rid of Manning, get rid of your chances. Can we possibly find another QB to be 'that guy'... of course. But it takes TIME.. and can take a very long time. Like so many other aspects in life... in sports.. you HAVE to strike while the iron is hot, and its not any hotter than it is now. NOW is the time to make that run/shot for the ring. Brock isn't going to do it. Moving forward with another QB can come later, as it will ALWAYS be an option. Simply accepting defeat and accepting a "rebuilding time" doesn't make sense when you have the personnel to make a serious run. We can make a serious run because we have the QB to make that run. Without that QB, we aren't contenders. It's that simple.

I agree to a point, but I also think it's far easier to find that quarterback then it was at any other time in league history. It's rather pointless to argue at this point, I think it's pretty much a given that it will happen, that said I don't see us holding the Lombardi come the end of the season, I hope we do as all fans want that...but I think our best chances were this past year and the year before when we pretty much didn't show up for the Super Bowl we were in. Could it be coaching? Of course, I think part of it was, but I think it was partially the players, look at the comments of Demaryius earlier this off-season, the locker room was scared and had no heart...but why? They should have been hungry despite the odds, despite the issues facing them. And if we fail again? And what if we do fail and then Osweiler comes in and does what Manning couldn't?

Slick
03-03-2015, 04:07 PM
ITs a QB league. Manning single HANDedly made us Super Bowl contenders by being on the roster. Get rid of Manning, get rid of your chances. Can we possibly find another QB to be 'that guy'... of course. But it takes TIME.. and can take a very long time. Like so many other aspects in life... in sports.. you HAVE to strike while the iron is hot, and its not any hotter than it is now. NOW is the time to make that run/shot for the ring. Brock isn't going to do it. Moving forward with another QB can come later, as it will ALWAYS be an option. Simply accepting defeat and accepting a "rebuilding time" doesn't make sense when you have the personnel to make a serious run. We can make a serious run because we have the QB to make that run. Without that QB, we aren't contenders. It's that simple.

There's the difference between you and me. I don't think the iron is hot anymore. I'm not going to berate anyone for wanting him to come back, and I agree that he most definitely gives Denver the best chance to win in 2015, I just don't think he will.

Pay him what we owe him and do the best you can with roster holes, and move on when he's gone. He's had his shot with a loaded roster, he's had all the weapons a QB can ask for in the modern NFL and he still didn't win it all. Spend the money on the trenches and let him make do with the guys still under contract.

Denver's going to be paying DT and Sanders more money than the defending champs WRs and their TE combined. Think on that for a minute too.

CoachChaz
03-03-2015, 04:10 PM
Look at it this way. With the rookie salary structure in place, you can afford to restructure Manning and still pay him out for a few years after he retires, while having a young QB on the roster pretty cheap. That offsets the cost of a QB at least until the young guy needs an extension. So, in a way, it balances out.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 04:15 PM
That's if, if Osweiler is not the quarterback in question Coach. Right now he'll be a free agent and to tag him would cost Denver astronomically under a tag. If not then Denver will likely have a pick outside the Top 20 give that the Broncos at least do well enough to get into the playoffs which is likely then the Broncos will either have to take a third or fourth option in the draft or trade up to nab someone which would likewise cost Denver quite a bit, maybe not fiscally but in roster longevity.

NightTrainLayne
03-03-2015, 04:19 PM
That's if, if Osweiler is not the quarterback in question Coach. Right now he'll be a free agent and to tag him would cost Denver astronomically under a tag. If not then Denver will likely have a pick outside the Top 20 give that the Broncos at least do well enough to get into the playoffs which is likely then the Broncos will either have to take a third or fourth option in the draft or trade up to nab someone which would likewise cost Denver quite a bit, maybe not fiscally but in roster longevity.

I think you're missing something if you think that the Broncos would have to tag Oz in order to keep him. Nobody else is going to be offering him anything like that. Yes, we will have to negotiate something more than the rookie contract, but it's not an either tag him, or he's gone situation.

CoachChaz
03-03-2015, 04:23 PM
If Denver offers Oz anything significant, it sends the message that they want him long term. So, you sign him to something for 2-3 years for a raise and let him prove himself. It's a cost friendly deal in a system that he knows and it keeps the QB spot cheap until we know if he's the future and while paying off Manning. If another team comes in and offers something stupid...let him walk and go from there.

The options are actually pretty abundant.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 04:30 PM
I think you're missing something if you think that the Broncos would have to tag Oz in order to keep him. Nobody else is going to be offering him anything like that. Yes, we will have to negotiate something more than the rookie contract, but it's not an either tag him, or he's gone situation.

You do know that four teams tried to trade for him last off-season correct? Think about how weak this class is and how quarterback hungry the league is, there is always someone willing to give more even for an unproven commodity or player in this instance. Now if the Broncos can extend him and he accepts it then I think we're good. But do we know if he feels slighted or readily accepts what is going on with Manning? Let's just say that he isn't and that come the off-season he refuses to re-sign and tests the market? I am just saying if Train not will, but think about it. The Browns, Cardinals, Bills, Buccaneers, Texans could all be an option for a shot if he doesn't want to return, again I am not saying that is it, but if it is? We as fans are biased and can not believe a player could want to play elsewhere or be upset with the team enough to move on, but it happens. And if it does, then it does - that is life, but we have no way to know how it will play out till it does.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 04:32 PM
If Denver offers Oz anything significant, it sends the message that they want him long term. So, you sign him to something for 2-3 years for a raise and let him prove himself. It's a cost friendly deal in a system that he knows and it keeps the QB spot cheap until we know if he's the future and while paying off Manning. If another team comes in and offers something stupid...let him walk and go from there.

The options are actually pretty abundant.

I agree, but the point of my post is what if he is not that quarterback? Denver will be in somewhat of a bind cause where we will likely fall in the draft come next off-season unless they truly feel Osweiler is the one.

Slick
03-03-2015, 04:33 PM
Look at it this way. With the rookie salary structure in place, you can afford to restructure Manning and still pay him out for a few years after he retires, while having a young QB on the roster pretty cheap. That offsets the cost of a QB at least until the young guy needs an extension. So, in a way, it balances out.

I see your point, but that hand-cuffs the next QB somewhat until Peyton's money comes off the books. You could put more talent around the new guy if you aren't paying Manning when he's not even on the roster anymore.

Timmy!
03-03-2015, 04:34 PM
Hmmm not what I've gathered at all. He doesn't have a history of taking less money....ever.


Well other than he did it in Indy, twice....like it says in the article that this thread is about.

Northman
03-03-2015, 04:44 PM
What's the sarcasm for? I posted this because there is a theme amongst some of the posters that Manning is too greedy to restructure, and that there is no precedent for it. This article dispels that myth.

I personally havent seen any theme among posters here stating he was greedy.

In fact, last year when i brought up the idea of Manning restructuring i was told it wouldnt make a difference with the cap.

Considering one of the people who high fived your last comment was the one stating that it wouldnt make a difference brought a chuckle out of me. Guess Elway and the Broncos felt differently.

Lancane
03-03-2015, 04:46 PM
I don't see Manning as greedy or he could have asked for more such as Brees and a couple others have who are making 21 plus million a season, and even taking less would not hurt him...he makes 12 million a year in endorsements not to mention the income from his Papa John stores.

Northman
03-03-2015, 04:47 PM
That's if, if Osweiler is not the quarterback in question Coach. Right now he'll be a free agent and to tag him would cost Denver astronomically under a tag. If not then Denver will likely have a pick outside the Top 20 give that the Broncos at least do well enough to get into the playoffs which is likely then the Broncos will either have to take a third or fourth option in the draft or trade up to nab someone which would likewise cost Denver quite a bit, maybe not fiscally but in roster longevity.

Denver wont tag Oz.

Northman
03-03-2015, 04:51 PM
You do know that four teams tried to trade for him last off-season correct? Think about how weak this class is and how quarterback hungry the league is, there is always someone willing to give more even for an unproven commodity or player in this instance. Now if the Broncos can extend him and he accepts it then I think we're good. But do we know if he feels slighted or readily accepts what is going on with Manning? Let's just say that he isn't and that come the off-season he refuses to re-sign and tests the market? I am just saying if Train not will, but think about it. The Browns, Cardinals, Bills, Buccaneers, Texans could all be an option for a shot if he doesn't want to return, again I am not saying that is it, but if it is? We as fans are biased and can not believe a player could want to play elsewhere or be upset with the team enough to move on, but it happens. And if it does, then it does - that is life, but we have no way to know how it will play out till it does.

Trading is different than paying large sums of money for a player who has not played any meaningful downs. A team can take the risk of trading for a player like Oz but will not pay a huge amount of dollars for him since he has proved nothing at the pro level. People get confused by what happens to guys like Matt Flynn and believe the same will happen with Oz. But they couldnt be more wrong. Futhermore, Oz is currently backing up a future HOF QB, part of one of the best NFL franchises in the league and once Manning goes has the #1 chance to fill his shoes. For a guy like Oz he is in the absolute best position possible. The only way he does make another roster is if Denver does trade him or flat out cuts him. I dont see Denver doing either.

TXBRONC
03-03-2015, 05:03 PM
ITs a QB league. Manning single HANDedly made us Super Bowl contenders by being on the roster. Get rid of Manning, get rid of your chances. Can we possibly find another QB to be 'that guy'... of course. But it takes TIME.. and can take a very long time. Like so many other aspects in life... in sports.. you HAVE to strike while the iron is hot, and its not any hotter than it is now. NOW is the time to make that run/shot for the ring. Brock isn't going to do it. Moving forward with another QB can come later, as it will ALWAYS be an option. Simply accepting defeat and accepting a "rebuilding time" doesn't make sense when you have the personnel to make a serious run. We can make a serious run because we have the QB to make that run. Without that QB, we aren't contenders. It's that simple.

Single handedly?

Lancane
03-03-2015, 05:07 PM
Denver wont tag Oz.

I agree, that is why I brought that up, we actually had some posters say we could tag him...at that price? I think not...lol.


Trading is different than paying large sums of money for a player who has not played any meaningful downs. A team can take the risk of trading for a player like Oz but will not pay a huge amount of dollars for him since he has proved nothing at the pro level. People get confused by what happens to guys like Matt Flynn and believe the same will happen with Oz. But they couldnt be more wrong. Futhermore, Oz is currently backing up a future HOF QB, part of one of the best NFL franchises in the league and once Manning goes has the #1 chance to fill his shoes. For a guy like Oz he is in the absolute best position possible. The only way he does make another roster is if Denver does trade him or flat out cuts him. I dont see Denver doing either.

Of course we believe he is in the best position as I said we as fans are biased... But does he believe that? Is he happy with how things have played out? I don't think any of us have that answer. As to the rest, so long as this is a quarterback driven league someone will be willing to overpay, even for an unknown. If Hoyer, Orton and Flynn can find somewhat competent contracts then someone will see him as a probable risk worth a little more cash. He is going to make a little over a million this season with bonuses, etc. So what if he wants a three year 15 million dollar extension to stay? After all, he's seeing others of his draft class making bank, how long do you expect him to play for peanuts? Of course he might be absolutely cool with the situation and he'd return for a million and half a year, but Denver would have to give him more then he is making now probably at least double.

And again, what if they don't see him as the future despite reports to the contrary? I'm not arguing against Manning returning or not, I am saying that should Denver go deep as we expect and we're left needing a quarterback then the Broncos could be in a tough spot. Maybe Elway is okay with a million a year but not more for Osweiler? There could be a hundred reasons why it doesn't go forward as planned, not that I am arguing that it will, just it could cause a precarious position for the club.

Northman
03-03-2015, 05:25 PM
But does he believe that? Is he happy with how things have played out?

I guess i dont understand why he would be unhappy or why anyone would come to that conclusion. Its not like he was #1 draft pick and expected to save the franchise. He was taken to backup Manning and either come in when he was hurt or take over when he was done so as long as he has done enough to prove to the organization that he can be the guy. If he is unhappy because he has been sitting and expecting to learn than that is a character issue and all on him. But if he gets butthurt over something like that than i really dont want him on this team. But, NOTHING i have seen or heard has at all lead me to that conclusion.


so long as this is a quarterback driven league someone will be willing to overpay, even for an unknown.

When i see it, ill believe it. I have yet to see a QB with no starting experience get overpaid to start. Especially a 2nd rounder or lower.


If Hoyer, Orton and Flynn can find somewhat competent contracts then someone will see him as a probable risk worth a little more cash.

But again, all those guys have game time experience.


So what if he wants a three year 15 million dollar extension to stay? After all, he's seeing others of his draft class making bank, how long do you expect him to play for peanuts?

Lol, come on Lan. Oz hasnt played. He has no bargaining chip. As someone else pointed out, chances are Denver pays him a little more in case Manning comes back but no team including Denver is going to shovel out millions of dollars for an unknown commodity.


Of course he might be absolutely cool with the situation and he'd return for a million and half a year, but Denver would have to give him more then he is making now probably at least double.

As im sure with all jobs when you have tenure you do tend to get a little raise. But those raises are also based on production and right now the only thing "hypothetically" that Oz has gained is knowledge. As i stated before, he has no bargaining tool because he hasnt really been put to work. He's like a guy at Comcast who takes 12 weeks of training and still gets paid but the pressure of raises and evaluations dont take place until he hits the field on a regular basis.


And again, what if they don't see him as the future despite reports to the contrary? I'm not arguing against Manning returning or not, I am saying that should Denver go deep as we expect and we're left needing a quarterback then the Broncos could be in a tough spot.

Broncos would be in a tough spot anyway. The Broncos are not the Cleveland Browns and dont have the luxury (or not so luxury) of drafting in the top 10 every year. Its going to play out like this,

1) Manning returns and Denver remains a playoff contender/Super Bowl contender, retires, and Oz takes over with the team maybe getting 7-9 wins his first year and becomes the future QB of Denver.

or

2) Manning does the above, retires, Oz sucks, and Denver has to find a vet to keep the ship a float while drafting QB's where and when they can which could mean a possible future moving up the draft to get one.


Point is, the team is still going to have some bump in the roads if Oz takes over or some other QB. Thats what happens when you lose a HOF'r in front of you. After John retired the team went 6-10 but then went 11-5 the following year before losing the SB champs. So even if Denver has a down year i dont expect Elway to let the ship sink for a decade ala Oakland. Just got to have faith that this isnt McDaniels here, its John Mother****ing Elway. :)

Simple Jaded
03-03-2015, 06:04 PM
I agree to a point, but I also think it's far easier to find that quarterback then it was at any other time in league history. It's rather pointless to argue at this point, I think it's pretty much a given that it will happen, that said I don't see us holding the Lombardi come the end of the season, I hope we do as all fans want that...but I think our best chances were this past year and the year before when we pretty much didn't show up for the Super Bowl we were in. Could it be coaching? Of course, I think part of it was, but I think it was partially the players, look at the comments of Demaryius earlier this off-season, the locker room was scared and had no heart...but why? They should have been hungry despite the odds, despite the issues facing them. And if we fail again? And what if we do fail and then Osweiler comes in and does what Manning couldn't?

If they fail again they fail again, they've only succeeded twice in five decades. And if Osweiler comes and and does what Manning can't then that's 3 times in five decades.

TXBRONC
03-03-2015, 07:53 PM
Denver wont tag Oz.

I don't see how they would be necessary.

NightTrainLayne
03-04-2015, 11:49 AM
You do know that four teams tried to trade for him last off-season correct? .

You do know that those four teams tried to trade for him AND his rookie contract last off-season correct?

Lancane
03-04-2015, 01:09 PM
You do know that those four teams tried to trade for him AND his rookie contract last off-season correct?

Train I think you’re missing the point, not surprised because so many of us on here are hung up due to our bias as fans, which is absolutely true.

Teams still think he could compete for a starting job. Yes, he’d have still been under his rookie deal, with no real time under center come the end of the year teams only have to offer him enough to make him jump ship, when the top amount you receive according to your rookie deal is a tad over a million for one season that might not be all that hard, especially if the Broncos don’t want to extend him with any real fiscal benefit to him. If Denver offers him a two year 3 million dollar extension he might or might not accept, if they wait and offer him the same at the end of the year he’ll probably test free agency which is what Elway likes to do, and let’s say that Houston offers him a two year 5 million dollar deal who do you think he’ll pick? Denver? Where he hasn’t gotten a fair shot, where he has sat for four years? And what if Manning returns again?

This isn’t about Osweiler as much as about the Broncos. They’ve claimed that he is the quarterback of the future, teams don’t usually allow the future to sit for near to half a decade. And they might believe he is not the answer but might simply be the best option for a transitional year or two, or they might and what has transpired could have distanced the relationship between both sides, we have no clue how either side feels about it. If he is a true competitor it might not sit well with him how this has played out, again four or five years waiting for a shot could be too much. There are a couple ways this could play out with Osweiler or it might be best to simply move on for both sides.

The Broncos with Manning at the helm will not likely have a Top 20 Pick, do you agree? Next year it looks like at least one top option might be available after 20, but more then likely they’ll have to jump up using another high draft pick if not more to secure a quarterback of the future if they are not going forward with Osweiler, either way in the end they’ll have to give more money to Osweiler or trade away some picks to get Manning’s replacement which is more likely because I just don’t see how any of this would sit well with Osweiler who has watched as others of his draft class are succeeding and then looks at himself as being a glorified clean-up/back up quarterback of the future but hasn’t been giving a fair shot, and don’t think for a minute that his agent hasn’t been whispering in his ear, that is what they do best.

NightTrainLayne
03-04-2015, 02:06 PM
Train I think you’re missing the point, not surprised because so many of us on here are hung up due to our bias as fans, which is absolutely true.

Teams still think he could compete for a starting job. Yes, he’d have still been under his rookie deal, with no real time under center come the end of the year teams only have to offer him enough to make him jump ship, when the top amount you receive according to your rookie deal is a tad over a million for one season that might not be all that hard, especially if the Broncos don’t want to extend him with any real fiscal benefit to him. If Denver offers him a two year 3 million dollar extension he might or might not accept, if they wait and offer him the same at the end of the year he’ll probably test free agency which is what Elway likes to do, and let’s say that Houston offers him a two year 5 million dollar deal who do you think he’ll pick? Denver? Where he hasn’t gotten a fair shot, where he has sat for four years? And what if Manning returns again?

This isn’t about Osweiler as much as about the Broncos. They’ve claimed that he is the quarterback of the future, teams don’t usually allow the future to sit for near to half a decade. And they might believe he is not the answer but might simply be the best option for a transitional year or two, or they might and what has transpired could have distanced the relationship between both sides, we have no clue how either side feels about it. If he is a true competitor it might not sit well with him how this has played out, again four or five years waiting for a shot could be too much. There are a couple ways this could play out with Osweiler or it might be best to simply move on for both sides.

The Broncos with Manning at the helm will not likely have a Top 20 Pick, do you agree? Next year it looks like at least one top option might be available after 20, but more then likely they’ll have to jump up using another high draft pick if not more to secure a quarterback of the future if they are not going forward with Osweiler, either way in the end they’ll have to give more money to Osweiler or trade away some picks to get Manning’s replacement which is more likely because I just don’t see how any of this would sit well with Osweiler who has watched as others of his draft class are succeeding and then looks at himself as being a glorified clean-up/back up quarterback of the future but hasn’t been giving a fair shot, and don’t think for a minute that his agent hasn’t been whispering in his ear, that is what they do best.

You were posting about TAGGING him! Not $5 mil/year.

I responded (and Coach) that there were a lot of options that will be available to the Broncos less than tagging him. Now, you're talking about Houston finagling him from us for $5 mill.

BroncoWave
03-04-2015, 02:06 PM
Next year it looks like at least one top option might be available after 20, but more then likely they’ll have to jump up using another high draft pick if not more to secure a quarterback of the future if they are not going forward with Osweiler, either way in the end they’ll have to give more money to Osweiler or trade away some picks to get Manning’s replacement which is more likely because I just don’t see how any of this would sit well with Osweiler who has watched as others of his draft class are succeeding and then looks at himself as being a glorified clean-up/back up quarterback of the future but hasn’t been giving a fair shot, and don’t think for a minute that his agent hasn’t been whispering in his ear, that is what they do best.

The period is your friend, dude.

BroncoNut
03-04-2015, 02:24 PM
that's great that Manning is not greedy and a great guy. heck, I wouldn't have a problem with Mother Theresa under center if she could get us a Lombardi. that would be kinda neat actually, in many ways which I won't get into now

Cugel
03-04-2015, 08:49 PM
Why do you hate that idea when we have been embarrassed 3 years in a row come playoff time?

Ironically Paige explains why perfectly:


The misanthropists who are curious to watch Brock Osweiler lead the Broncos to a 7-9 record and a third-place finish in the AFC West can turn their concentration to Pot Roasting.

I'd say you're a perfect example of the "misanthropes" he's talking about.You know, the ones who will instantly forget everything they ever posted about "let's see what we have in Brock Osweiler" the minute he starts throwing a few picks and amply demonstrates why your chances of ever finding a franchise QB at #57 in the second round are not too hot (1 out of the last 118 QBs selected - Russell Wilson, has been any good).

You can stop your bloviating nonsense about Peyton now. He's back and he took a $4 million pay cut. :coffee:

Cugel
03-04-2015, 08:57 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Lancane View Post
Next year it looks like at least one top option might be available after 20, but more then likely they’ll have to jump up using another high draft pick if not more to secure a quarterback of the future if they are not going forward with Osweiler, either way in the end they’ll have to give more money to Osweiler or trade away some picks to get Manning’s replacement which is more likely because I just don’t see how any of this would sit well with Osweiler who has watched as others of his draft class are succeeding and then looks at himself as being a glorified clean-up/back up quarterback of the future but hasn’t been giving a fair shot, and don’t think for a minute that his agent hasn’t been whispering in his ear, that is what they do best.

Screw Brock Osweiler if he doesn't like it. He can stick around and become the Broncos starting QB in a system he knows or try and latch on elsewhere and fight for a job he may or may not win. He "hasn't been given a 'fair shot'"? Are you higher than Bob Marley? You think he needs a "fair shot" to beat out Peyton Manning? On what planet is that logical?

P.S. Man that quote is one king hell of a run-on sentence.

As for Brock's salary he'll get something over $10 million if he's the starter in 2016. Probably closer to $15 million if he earns his incentives. That's what starting QBs in the NFL get in FA, not $3-5 million. Of course, the Broncos will make the contract so that if Brock doesn't meet the incentives he doesn't earn the money, (like wins, TDs, completion percentage, playoff wins, SB, etc.). If he does meet expectations he'd be worth the money, and if not he won't earn it.

If Peyton returns in 2016, then Brock will seek a job elsewhere most probably. I don't see the Broncos being able to keep him in that scenario, but right now, it sure doesn't look like Peyton will be back. He has looked enormously like John Elway in taking his time to decide whether to come back for his last season, and Elway was coming off the SB win. If the Broncos do not win the SB this season, it seems very probable that Peyton would hang it up rather than come back to complete his contract.

tomjonesrocks
03-04-2015, 09:10 PM
If there is a big risk of not keeping Brock after this year I hope they trade him in the draft. Would imagine his value is about a 4th rounder. At worst a 5th but conditions could be added.

Simple Jaded
03-04-2015, 09:46 PM
If there is a big risk of not keeping Brock after this year I hope they trade him in the draft. Would imagine his value is about a 4th rounder. At worst a 5th but conditions could be added.

He's the 3rd best QB in this class.

Northman
03-05-2015, 12:00 AM
If there is a big risk of not keeping Brock after this year I hope they trade him in the draft. Would imagine his value is about a 4th rounder. At worst a 5th but conditions could be added.


He's the 3rd best QB in this class.

I agree with TJ. Based on what we know at this point Brock probably would not garner anymore than a 4th, maybe 3rd at best depending on what else was offered. Doesnt matter where Denver drafted him as he has no body of work to warrant anything higher at this point. Personally, i dont see Denver wasting the time to have him learn under Manning just to trade him away without seeing what he has in game time situations. If they were brazen enough to see what Tebow has i dont think Elway will be keen to ditch Oz without providing him the same opportunity.

DenBronx
03-05-2015, 12:55 AM
Hmmm not what I've gathered at all. He doesn't have a history of taking less money....ever.


Well other than he did it in Indy, twice....like it says in the article that this thread is about.


The article said they "reorganized" Mannings deal in Indy. Since when is restructuring taking less? Rob Peter to pay Paul but in the end deals like that are backloaded and you eventually have to pay the piper.

Manning outright took less in this deal but can make up for it by winning a SuperBowl. Much different situation then what happened in Indy.

Timmy!
03-05-2015, 01:06 AM
The article said they "reorganized" Mannings deal in Indy. Since when is restructuring taking less? Rob Peter to pay Paul but in the end deals like that are backloaded and you eventually have to pay the piper.

Manning outright took less in this deal but can make up for it by winning a SuperBowl. Much different situation then what happened in Indy.

:lol: oh stop. He helped his team with cap relief in the past, like some players, including Elway did by moving money around. The list of QB, let alone HOF QBs (or any qb for that matter) who actually took a straight pay cut is extraordinarily short, but Pey Pey is on it.

capt. Jack
03-05-2015, 06:14 AM
900k a game for PFM is a Bargain, "the best we ever had"!

Lancane
03-05-2015, 12:09 PM
I agree with TJ. Based on what we know at this point Brock probably would not garner anymore than a 4th, maybe 3rd at best depending on what else was offered. Doesnt matter where Denver drafted him as he has no body of work to warrant anything higher at this point. Personally, i dont see Denver wasting the time to have him learn under Manning just to trade him away without seeing what he has in game time situations. If they were brazen enough to see what Tebow has i dont think Elway will be keen to ditch Oz without providing him the same opportunity.

His value would be highest this year due to the state of the draft class then next or thereafter depending on what he does on the field, any field. We have to remember that these athletes have a limited shelf life (there is a reason that at most levels you don't sit for more then three years), Young even after he sat behind Montana all those years had a short career in the end, he may have been inducted into the HOF but it wasn't because he had a long career, his induction is proof IMHO that T.D. being snuffed is a poor excuse. And if Osweiler had really showed any signs of being that franchise quarterback I would think that Elway would have been more then ready to dump Manning's mega contract in favor of youth which has proven favorable in terms of Championships, Tom Brady is the oldest quarterback in the last decade to win it, look at the ages of the others who have won, who was the last 35 plus year old to win it outside Brady? Seattle knew that Wilson was better then Flynn, Green Bay knew it was time to replace Farve, Indy knew it was time to move past Manning...it's possible we're just prolonging the inevitable, but I don't think the Broncos would waste near half a decade to get the future on the field no matter who was in front of him. And as I stated before, what competitor would be fine with sitting four or five years as your body starts to soften and you lose that youthfulness and hunger that comes with being young? You turn into the 30 year old version of Big Ben or Michael Vick...lol.

This isn't about pro or anti Manning or Osweiler, what is best for the team? Oz will be 25 this year, he'd be taking over the Broncos when he's close to being 26, close to 27 if Manning does finish out his contract...that was something a lot of people had issues with in regards to drafting Brandon Weeden, two things happen with age - either you are worn or soft physically. Not to mention that next year's draft could end up being the best quarterback class since the year Osweiler was drafted, it has the potential to be the best we've seen since the year Elway was drafted to be honest. I like Osweiler, but something is holding him back and it's more then Manning...the Broncos are in a transition year going to an offense better suited to Osweiler then Manning and yet Elway wanted Manning back instead of turning to his heir apparent or so-called who is a better fit and would have saved the team a ton of money? Especially knowing that few teams find success in the year of a regime change? What it tells me is that Elway likely doesn't see Osweiler as the answer, that is the most logical reason I can think of. As for Tebow, he was kind of stuck with Tebow because the fervor of the situation he inherited, signing Manning allowed him to move on with far less bellyaching then if he drafted a replacement, so I don't see that as part of the reasoning behind Osweiler, and I like Oz - I just wonder if the way the team is going about it is best or if trading him for a 4th and depending on playing time another pick the year after instead of hoping that he is fine with the situation which is doubtful if he is a true competitor or banking the future of this team who couldn't in four or five years to step up and be a franchise quarterback that should have at least given the team pause to continue with Manning which it doesn't sound like he did whatsoever.

Ziggy
03-05-2015, 12:40 PM
If there is a big risk of not keeping Brock after this year I hope they trade him in the draft. Would imagine his value is about a 4th rounder. At worst a 5th but conditions could be added.

Adam Schefter talked about Osweiller's trade value last year before the draft. He said that he would be a 5 rounder, 4th at best. Now he's a year older with one less year left on his contract so that value has gone down. We'd be looking at a 6th rounder, 5th at best.

Lancane
03-05-2015, 12:47 PM
Screw Brock Osweiler if he doesn't like it. He can stick around and become the Broncos starting QB in a system he knows or try and latch on elsewhere and fight for a job he may or may not win. He "hasn't been given a 'fair shot'"? Are you higher than Bob Marley? You think he needs a "fair shot" to beat out Peyton Manning? On what planet is that logical?

I think your the misreading what I am getting at Cugel. Screw Osweiler? This isn’t about him but more about the team’s competitive longevity. If he’s a competitor you don’t want to keep sitting which does take a physical toll on the body just as playing too much does, different ending to a crap situation for the athlete. Competitors want to fight and want to play period. No, he hasn’t had a fair shot because he was never in the competition (that is my opinion) - have you read one report where he is pushing Manning or making it hard for the Broncos to keep going with Manning? If Andrew Luck was on the roster think he’d be sitting and learning or competing? Brees, Rodgers, hell even Foles or Wilson might have been in the mix, as I said, Osweiler did not even give them pause that means he is so out of Manning’s class they felt there was no way they could move on just yet and he’s turning 25 this year, he’ll be 26 come November of the following season. Maybe it’s best to move on for both sides at this point, no matter the trade value.


As for Brock's salary he'll get something over $10 million if he's the starter in 2016. Probably closer to $15 million if he earns his incentives. That's what starting QBs in the NFL get in FA, not $3-5 million. Of course, the Broncos will make the contract so that if Brock doesn't meet the incentives he doesn't earn the money, (like wins, TDs, completion percentage, playoff wins, SB, etc.). If he does meet expectations he'd be worth the money, and if not he won't earn it.

No way Elway will pay Brock Osweiler 10 mil or anyone for that matter knowing he is an unknown commodity...the thought is as laughable. The talk is of extending his rookie deal, not getting an entirely new deal think he’ll jump from paying him about a mil this season to near ten times that without time on the field? Okay. And yes, look at Hoyer’s deal, if Osweiler goes to free agency his first deal will be far less till he proves himself where it counts.


If Peyton returns in 2016, then Brock will seek a job elsewhere most probably. I don't see the Broncos being able to keep him in that scenario, but right now, it sure doesn't look like Peyton will be back. He has looked enormously like John Elway in taking his time to decide whether to come back for his last season, and Elway was coming off the SB win. If the Broncos do not win the SB this season, it seems very probable that Peyton would hang it up rather than come back to complete his contract.

He’s coming back to a situation that has proven to almost never lead to a Championship, a complete coaching staff change and one with an offensive minded head coach and coordinator both of which run an offense that is a better fit for Osweiler then himself (think about that for a moment). His best shot at a championship with the new regime is probably the following season and last year of his deal to be honest, that is if they can develop an offense together that is a good fit for both the quarterback and the scheme. And there is a chance that Manning won’t return, but you never know and I don’t believe it really matters because we’re talking about a situation which did not even give the Broncos pause to think if they were going in the right direction which speaks volumes about where Osweiler is in the eyes of the team, especially given that they were slated to cough up 19 mil for the season or could have saved it and added pieces across the board, but in their mind Manning gives them the best chance no matter the losses to the roster.

Lancane
03-05-2015, 12:49 PM
Adam Schefter talked about Osweiller's trade value last year before the draft. He said that he would be a 5 rounder, 4th at best. Now he's a year older with one less year left on his contract so that value has gone down. We'd be looking at a 6th rounder, 5th at best.

I think the value remains because the weakness of the draft class to be honest Zigs, if it was the next class then I would concur with that. It's also possible that Denver could trade him for a lesser pick and another the following year to be determined on playing time, etc.

Northman
03-05-2015, 06:39 PM
but something is holding him back and it's more then Manning...the Broncos are in a transition year going to an offense better suited to Osweiler then Manning and yet Elway wanted Manning back instead of turning to his heir apparent or so-called who is a better fit and would have saved the team a ton of money? Especially knowing that few teams find success in the year of a regime change? What it tells me is that Elway likely doesn't see Osweiler as the answer, that is the most logical reason I can think of.

Disagree entirely.

Tampa Bay went on to win a SB following a regime change so im not sold on the idea that Kubes and company cant find lightning in a bottle. Also, since it was found out that Manning was playing with a torn quad it would not be a very good PR move for Elway and the Broncos to simply kick Pey Pey to the curb. Its one thing if Manning had just retired but if the guy still wants to play it would look pretty douchy for Denver to cut him which would indirectly show that the Broncos place sole blame on him for the downfall last year. Thats not good business nor a good PR move. If Manning can still play at a high level as long as he is healthy than it only makes sense that Denver continue to try to win a SB with a guy of his caliber. There is no rush to put Oz on the field if you dont need too which in this case Denver doesnt need to. The goal is to win the SB and so as long as you can afford the HOF QB and he still wants to play you stick with him until he cant. The Broncos will move on to Oz when they are ready and have exhausted all other means.

Simple Jaded
03-05-2015, 10:03 PM
I still think the Broncos like Osweiler, I still think Osweiler is Mannings successor. But the goal is to raise a Lombardi and say "this ones for Pat", that's why the Broncos wanted Manning back, he gives them a legitimate chance of winning a Championship if he can stay healthy.

I wanna see Osweiler make it as Denver's starting QB but I'm gonna wait til the time is right to worry about the future.

Northman
03-06-2015, 03:55 AM
I still think the Broncos like Osweiler, I still think Osweiler is Mannings successor. But the goal is to raise a Lombardi and say "this ones for Pat", that's why the Broncos wanted Manning back, he gives them a legitimate chance of winning a Championship if he can stay healthy.

I wanna see Osweiler make it as Denver's starting QB but I'm gonna wait til the time is right to worry about the future.

Pretty much where i stand.

Valar Morghulis
03-06-2015, 11:30 AM
Pretty much where i stand.

Yup

Lancane
03-09-2015, 12:39 PM
I still think the Broncos like Osweiler, I still think Osweiler is Mannings successor. But the goal is to raise a Lombardi and say "this ones for Pat", that's why the Broncos wanted Manning back, he gives them a legitimate chance of winning a Championship if he can stay healthy.

I wanna see Osweiler make it as Denver's starting QB but I'm gonna wait til the time is right to worry about the future.

Problem is Jaded the future is just a season or two away - so it's ever present, it doesn't take long for the future to come into play especially when your quarterback is either mediocre (Plummer/Orton) or at their inevitable end despite the drive to compete (Manning/Farve). I like Osweiler and would love to see him succeed, but we disregard variables as fans, a player's mindset or that of the team - we've seen smoke n' mirror actions before, there is also the varied degrees of poor choice on both sides that could effect such an outcome, not that I think Denver would do so purposefully, but when your mindset is pinpoint you tend to be blindsided more often then not.

I just hope that in the end Denver is set both for the now and the then, but I also believe the league has shown what is success and what is not, Manning reminds me of Montana and Farve, both made impacts elsewhere but were never the same and really prolonged the inevitable for their respective secondary teams, and as for Osweiler...we have seen only one quarterback of the future in the modern era succeed after sitting for four or more seasons which was Steve Young. Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers sat for three years, but most start within a two year period, even collegiately most only sit for three years at most. These kids have a limited shelf life, for some it's physical others mental, it would suck that our future turns grim because we stunted his growth for the absolute need to milk another and that is my opinion.

But this is the last I am going to say about it for now, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong. I hope you're right to be honest, because it means a brighter future sooner, but if I am...then Denver allowed it's wallowing piety for a Lombardi diminish their longevity for years to come until they kind find someone once again to be that player of need and will suffer another strain of Orton like lackluster till found.

Simple Jaded
03-09-2015, 02:06 PM
For all we know Osweiler starts this time next year and is the beginning of the same string of Orton's. I honestly can't figure out what you expected Denver to do with their QB's, to me it's the best possible situation, a MVP candidate backed up by a talented understudy. . .to you it seems like it's doomed to fail. I don't get it and I has nothing to do with me being a fan.

Houston just extended Ryan Mallett for 2 years/$7 MM, I see absolutely no reason why Denver can't make it work with Osweiler. . . And that's if they even want to.

Lancane
03-09-2015, 04:59 PM
For all we know Osweiler starts this time next year and is the beginning of the same string of Orton's. I honestly can't figure out what you expected Denver to do with their QB's, to me it's the best possible situation, a MVP candidate backed up by a talented understudy. . .to you it seems like it's doomed to fail. I don't get it and I has nothing to do with me being a fan.

Houston just extended Ryan Mallett for 2 years/$7 MM, I see absolutely no reason why Denver can't make it work with Osweiler. . . And that's if they even want to.

Look Jaded, I’ve always considered myself at least a somewhat competent student of the game. Fact is that history tends to be repetitive more often then not. It’s rare for a veteran quarterbacks to win a Super Bowl after leaving their initial team after such a long career in fact you’ll be hard pressed to find any in the annals of NFL History, the only one would be Earl Morrall who was a fill in and not even a starter. Montana, Warner and Farve are the closest comparisons in the modern passing era and all three changed those respective teams where they landed and two led their teams to Super Bowls as well, did they win or do it more then once? No. The MVP honor means little IMHO, and Warner nearly won it in Arizona and Montana the same in Kansas City, that did not make them the right choice, just the easiest and those franchises today? Minnesota might have just got their replacement, Kansas City has a game manager and Arizona has, well I think you get the gist, they became bottom feeders for a number of years.

I get that everyone or at least a majority sees Manning as the best option to win now, many thought the same of Steve DeBerg but then John Elway took over and suffered the ups and downs of the position but in the end I believe it was for the best and so do most fans. Not saying Osweiler is near Elway in anyway whatsoever. But look at what little has been spent in moving forward regarding him just on the field, we all know that Manning is not the type to help a young quarterback develop, he's too competitive I believe (which is opinionative). Secondly, if Denver truly had as much faith in Osweiler as they claim I think the decision to pay Manning or to go youth would have been far harder especially during a regime change in which the offense being instilled is better suited for the younger quarterback then the veteran which tells me they are still too unsure about Brock going forward, they may like him but that could mean squat in regard to the greater overall picture. Let me ask you this, do you believe that this is helping Osweiler’s confidence? I know, I know to hell with or screw Brock Osweiler, I’ve heard it enough on here, let’s hope he loves the fans unlike the lack we give him! But you can stunt a players growth not only physically but mentally, I’ve seen it, sitting is one thing...sitting near half a decade usually backfires. Or can you tell me another quarterback to become a good or great quarterback after sitting four to five seasons?

Another thing is the misconception that we’re favorites for the Super Bowl, history would argue that fact due to the history of success following a regime change instilling a whole new scheme on both sides of the ball; the two which come to mind which is Seifert’s 49ers and Gruden’s Buccaneers are unfair examples both were inherently intact, in fact the offense was only tweaked by Gruden but the defense was left alone and Seifert kept the entire staff. Actually if you look at the Buccaneers it was their defense that paved the way entirely and the offense only started really exploding during the playoffs, then he had to face a Raiders team that he pretty much built under an inept coach who rode the coat tails of his former team to the Super Bowl. So can either show relevance to this discussion honestly? I think John Elway is riding a broke down horse because it solidifies his ability as a General Manager without lingering questions and let’s face it, a season or two of playoff berths prolongs evaluation of Kubiak whereas starting the next chapter will have it’s ups and downs, even forcing such much sooner not to mention a better evaluation of him in the eyes of everyone else.

But I don’t expect people to agree with me, as I said I hope you’re right and that they defy history and win the Lombardi and that Brock Osweiler can be productive despite what this may or may not be doing to him. Of course I am not the only one asking the question either, 31 weeks ago Joe Marrone wrote a column which voiced much of what I’ve said, Les Shapiro’s talk show covered this recently as well. Of course Elway is thinking of extending Osweiler, we’ve all heard this but Woody Paige said at this point you have to invest a four to five year deal in him which mirrors what Morrone said about Osweiler likely walking feeling undervalued by the franchise but that depending on it, he could take Elway down with him. I can only hope that Dennison and Kubiak focus on bringing him along better then the past regime and he becomes the next great in the Orange and Blue because I really like him, but I also know that learning from being thrown to the wolves is inevitable and would have been better now rather then a year or two from now because we’re banking as fans as the Broncos and Manning to be the first to do something in two areas which defies history.

Buff
03-09-2015, 05:07 PM
Lancane, I request... Nay - I demand that you summarize that entire post in one sentence.

Valar Morghulis
03-09-2015, 05:54 PM
Lancane, I request... Nay - I demand that you summarize that entire post in one sentence.

Basically he said, rental qbs don't win shit.

Lancane
03-09-2015, 05:56 PM
Lancane, I request... Nay - I demand that you summarize that entire post in one sentence.

:lol:

To summarize it, that history is repetitive and argues Denver finding success in the first year of a new regime with a veteran quarterback who spent most of his career elsewhere and against Osweiler succeeding after sitting for so long. Proof can be found easily enough, but people want to believe they can defy and change history, I hope they're right and I am wrong, till then though history tends to stand unless PED's are used like in the MLB.

Valar Morghulis
03-09-2015, 06:00 PM
Basically he said, rental qbs don't win shit.

The way I see it - rental qbs have not won shit yet. #positivereframe

See you in Santa Clara Lan, I will have my manning Jersey on when we meat

Lancane
03-09-2015, 06:11 PM
The way I see it - rental qbs have not won shit yet. #positivereframe

See you in Santa Clara Lan, I will have my manning Jersey on when we meat

Trust me, my opinion is not popular, guess who my son's favorite player is? :laugh:

If it happens I will meet you there wearing my Von Miller (Black) Jersey, but if not then you should have Manning sign it and then frame it as a momento.

Northman
03-09-2015, 06:14 PM
The fact that Dave wants Lan's meat is disturbing...... lol

Simple Jaded
03-09-2015, 11:19 PM
I'm assuming that the Broncos should have cut Manning and kept one of their FA's, whatever it is I cant imagine how you'd begin to sell it to Pat Bowlen. "Sorry Mr B but we've decided to give up and take the chance of squandering your remaining lucidity on the off chance that the kid can do what the Master could not".

One thing is obvious, Lan, you're clearly more invested in Brock Osweiler's angle in this than Pat Bowlen.

Valar Morghulis
03-10-2015, 01:31 AM
If it happens I will meet you there wearing my Von Miller (Black) Jersey.

Racist

MOtorboat
03-10-2015, 01:35 AM
Manning should have been greedy. His sacrifice has been for Jack shit.

Valar Morghulis
03-10-2015, 01:54 AM
Manning should have been greedy. His sacrifice has been for Jack shit.

So far.

Northman
03-10-2015, 04:36 AM
Manning should have been greedy. His sacrifice has been for Jack shit.

Wow, never thought i would see you pack it in so soon.

Buff
03-10-2015, 09:19 AM
:lol:

To summarize it, that history is repetitive and argues Denver finding success in the first year of a new regime with a veteran quarterback who spent most of his career elsewhere and against Osweiler succeeding after sitting for so long. Proof can be found easily enough, but people want to believe they can defy and change history, I hope they're right and I am wrong, till then though history tends to stand unless PED's are used like in the MLB.

I said one sentence!

MOtorboat
03-10-2015, 10:19 AM
Wow, never thought i would see you pack it in so soon.

I'm not packing it in, but Denver will get worse at three positions: TE, G, DT, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why the quarterback had to take less money.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-10-2015, 10:28 AM
I'm not packing it in, but Denver will get worse at three positions: TE, G, DT, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why the quarterback had to take less money.

That's a valid question, but we should probably wait until the end of FA and the draft before we speculate too much.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 10:48 AM
I'm not packing it in, but Denver will get worse at three positions: TE, G, DT, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why the quarterback had to take less money.

This is where my curiosity lies. The team asks one of the greatest QB's of the modern era to take a pay cut...with NO concession on the team's part...in order to be more competitive in free agency. In the meantime, the team will get worse at a few key positions that already lack any kind of significant depth, and we still dont the have the funds available to make significant improvements at other positions.

Kind of a strange message to be sent.

Northman
03-10-2015, 10:59 AM
This is where my curiosity lies. The team asks one of the greatest QB's of the modern era to take a pay cut...with NO concession on the team's part...in order to be more competitive in free agency. In the meantime, the team will get worse at a few key positions that already lack any kind of significant depth, and we still dont the have the funds available to make significant improvements at other positions.

Kind of a strange message to be sent.


Not really, the guys that have left were asking to be paid more than they were worth so overpaying players to stay isnt sound logic. But as said, until we see what happens in FA and in the draft i think its a little early to cry foul to ask the QB to make room financially. I mean, its not like its going to make or break Manning.

Buff
03-10-2015, 11:04 AM
I'm not packing it in, but Denver will get worse at three positions: TE, G, DT, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why the quarterback had to take less money.


This is where my curiosity lies. The team asks one of the greatest QB's of the modern era to take a pay cut...with NO concession on the team's part...in order to be more competitive in free agency. In the meantime, the team will get worse at a few key positions that already lack any kind of significant depth, and we still dont the have the funds available to make significant improvements at other positions.

Kind of a strange message to be sent.

Free agency hasn't even opened yet. I understand posing the question - because I think everyone is wondering where the money will go, but let's give it a little time. I don't think Elway is going to pull an Idzik and leave us $20 mil under the cap.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 11:16 AM
Not really my point. But to focus on the FA portion of it...yes...there is obviously time to complete the signings we are looking to do. The issue is improving the team. Is there a better guard available than Franklin? A better TE than Thomas? I understand they are going to cost more, but it would appear to me that that was the point of asking Manning to take a pay cut. So if we're not going to allocate the money we asked him to give back to help obtain/retain quality personnel...then what was the point?

So, my question is...what kind of message does it send when we ask Manning to take a pay cut with NO concession on the part of the team...and that pay cut doesnt parlay into anything significant? Yes...free agency hasnt technically begun yet, but even when it does, what options are out there that are better then the ones we are losing?

"Hey Peyton, can you take a paycut so that we can retain some of our talent?" sounds a lot better than "Hey Peyton, can you take a paycut so we can replace our current talent with lesser talent?"

Buff
03-10-2015, 11:38 AM
Not really my point. But to focus on the FA portion of it...yes...there is obviously time to complete the signings we are looking to do. The issue is improving the team. Is there a better guard available than Franklin? A better TE than Thomas? I understand they are going to cost more, but it would appear to me that that was the point of asking Manning to take a pay cut. So if we're not going to allocate the money we asked him to give back to help obtain/retain quality personnel...then what was the point?

So, my question is...what kind of message does it send when we ask Manning to take a pay cut with NO concession on the part of the team...and that pay cut doesnt parlay into anything significant? Yes...free agency hasnt technically begun yet, but even when it does, what options are out there that are better then the ones we are losing?

"Hey Peyton, can you take a paycut so that we can retain some of our talent?" sounds a lot better than "Hey Peyton, can you take a paycut so we can replace our current talent with lesser talent?"

We aren't going to find a better pass catching TE this offseason, but Thomas' game has flaws or we wouldn't have let him walk. Same goes for Franklin who has led the team in penalties during his tenure here.

I just don't think it's as black and white as "we're definitely looking at a downgrade at all these positions." Let's see how all of the pieces fit together first. Maybe we downgrade our TE pass catching but upgrade our TE run blocking. Maybe our new guard will be a better complementary fit if he is a better pass blocker and doesn't take as many penalties.

Also - what "concessions" were you hoping for from the team with Manning's contract? He has a limited skillset and is being paid as such.

Northman
03-10-2015, 11:41 AM
So, my question is...what kind of message does it send when we ask Manning to take a pay cut with NO concession on the part of the team...and that pay cut doesnt parlay into anything significant?

sounds a lot better than "Hey Peyton, can you take a paycut so we can replace our current talent with lesser talent?"

If by chance Denver signs what you call "lesser" talent and we win the SB i guess the message would be we didnt have to overspend to achieve that goal because we were able to get more rounded players who have better chemistry with the team. Also, if Denver asks Peyton to take a paycut because they want to retain someone but that player still wants more that really isnt Manning's or Denver's fault. Just because you arent enamored by the names out there in FA does not mean those type of players wont benefit Denver going forward this year.

Northman
03-10-2015, 11:42 AM
We aren't going to find a better pass catching TE this offseason, but Thomas' game has flaws or we wouldn't have let him walk. Same goes for Franklin who has led the team in penalties during his tenure here.

I just don't think it's as black and white as "we're definitely looking at a downgrade at all these positions." Let's see how all of the pieces fit together first. Maybe we downgrade our TE pass catching but upgrade our TE run blocking. Maybe our new guard will be a better complementary fit if he is a better pass blocker and doesn't take as many penalties.

Also - what "concessions" were you hoping for from the team with Manning's contract? He has a limited skillset and is being paid as such.

Well said and pretty much was i was getting at in my last post.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 11:50 AM
If by chance Denver signs what you call "lesser" talent and we win the SB i guess the message would be we didnt have to overspend to achieve that goal because we were able to get more rounded players who have better chemistry with the team. Also, if Denver asks Peyton to take a paycut because they want to retain someone but that player still wants more that really isnt Manning's or Denver's fault. Just because you arent enamored by the names out there in FA does not mean those type of players wont benefit Denver going forward this year.

Seems like now we're just splitting hairs to prove a point. At the end of the day, WHY did we ask Manning to take a paycut with NO concession from the team? If it's for a reason other than IMPROVING the team, then please enlighten me. And if we are going to try to make the argument that we can sign cheaper free agents that will ultimately create better chemistry to improve the team, then again...what was the reason for requesting Manning to take the pay cut?

Maybe you're right and the 5th best guard available in free agency is a better fit than the 2nd best guard...or the 7th best DT option is better than the 3rd best. who knows how it all plays out. But on the surface, the point of asking Manning to take the pay cut was in order to obtain MORE free agents at lower costs than it was to obtain/retain better (on paper) free agents.

Buff
03-10-2015, 11:57 AM
Seems like now we're just splitting hairs to prove a point. At the end of the day, WHY did we ask Manning to take a paycut with NO concession from the team? If it's for a reason other than IMPROVING the team, then please enlighten me. And if we are going to try to make the argument that we can sign cheaper free agents that will ultimately create better chemistry to improve the team, then again...what was the reason for requesting Manning to take the pay cut?

Maybe you're right and the 5th best guard available in free agency is a better fit than the 2nd best guard...or the 7th best DT option is better than the 3rd best. who knows how it all plays out. But on the surface, the point of asking Manning to take the pay cut was in order to obtain MORE free agents at lower costs than it was to obtain/retain better (on paper) free agents.

Manning was asked to take a pay cut because 1.) That's what Elways thinks he's worth. 2.) Elway thinks he can utilize that $4 million to improve the team in other areas. As with all free agency valuations, the decision was made on an absolute basis. Not a relative one. "We think you are worth $15million regardless of what we pay everyone else on the team." It shouldn't be, "Hey, you can keep your $19 mil unless we find someone more worthy of that money."

Maybe it's to sign a long snapper, maybe it's to hold onto Rahim Moore, maybe it's to snag a yet-to-be-identified player who hits the market unexpectedly. You know that. Let's wait and see how the money is spent before we decide whether it was justified or not.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 11:57 AM
We aren't going to find a better pass catching TE this offseason, but Thomas' game has flaws or we wouldn't have let him walk. Same goes for Franklin who has led the team in penalties during his tenure here.

I just don't think it's as black and white as "we're definitely looking at a downgrade at all these positions." Let's see how all of the pieces fit together first. Maybe we downgrade our TE pass catching but upgrade our TE run blocking. Maybe our new guard will be a better complementary fit if he is a better pass blocker and doesn't take as many penalties.

Also - what "concessions" were you hoping for from the team with Manning's contract? He has a limited skillset and is being paid as such.

So on paper and based on performance to date, who is the guard that is available at a cheaper cost that can be a better "compliment" to the team than Franklin? What safety is available that has the experience and skill to match even a mediocre Rahim Moore? How about DT? What guy is out there that can fill the 1 tech spot better than Knighton or at least as well as him for a lower cost?

As far as team concessions for Manning, there are a ton of things they could have done. At the end of the day, it appears their whole pitch was that by taking a pay cut, it would allow them to make improvements to the team to give him one last hurrah. Personally...I just dont see how that is going to be accomplished considering the talent available in free agency.

Simple Jaded
03-10-2015, 12:00 PM
I think Denver needed that paycut to lessen the burden of the gauranteed money that has to be in escrow at 2:00 today.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 12:00 PM
Manning was asked to take a pay cut because 1.) That's what Elways thinks he's worth. 2.) Elway thinks he can utilize that $4 million to improve the team in other areas. As with all free agency valuations, the decision was made on an absolute basis. Not a relative one. "We think you are worth $15million regardless of what we pay everyone else on the team." It shouldn't be, "Hey, you can keep your $19 mil unless we find someone more worthy of that money."

Maybe it's to sign a long snapper, maybe it's to hold onto Rahim Moore, maybe it's to snag a yet-to-be-identified player who hits the market unexpectedly. You know that. Let's wait and see how the money is spent before we decide whether it was justified or not.

At the end of the day the purpose is to improve the team. Based on what is available right now...that possibility is looking pretty bleak. But, I suppose we can hold hope that someone of value will unexpectedly be released. So glad we're gambling on that.

At the end of the day, I dont think anyone is expecting us to sign the top guys available. But taking steps backward in terms of talent seems inevitable if the "wait and see who else gets cut" philosophy doesnt pan out.

Buff
03-10-2015, 12:03 PM
So on paper and based on performance to date, who is the guard that is available at a cheaper cost that can be a better "compliment" to the team than Franklin? What safety is available that has the experience and skill to match even a mediocre Rahim Moore? How about DT? What guy is out there that can fill the 1 tech spot better than Knighton or at least as well as him for a lower cost?

As far as team concessions for Manning, there are a ton of things they could have done. At the end of the day, it appears their whole pitch was that by taking a pay cut, it would allow them to make improvements to the team to give him one last hurrah. Personally...I just dont see how that is going to be accomplished considering the talent available in free agency.

I hear you - the talent in free agency is limited and the pool doesn't magically get deeper. But again, I just want to judge the totality of the moves in free agency and the draft before we determine whether it was a good plan or not.

CoachChaz
03-10-2015, 12:05 PM
I hear you - the talent in free agency is limited and the pool doesn't magically get deeper. But again, I just want to judge the totality of the moves in free agency and the draft before we determine whether it was a good plan or not.

Agreed. We all have to wait and see what happens. The point I was trying to make is that based on the talent available...the initial prognosis doesnt look very good.

Northman
03-10-2015, 12:09 PM
Seems like now we're just splitting hairs to prove a point. At the end of the day, WHY did we ask Manning to take a paycut with NO concession from the team? If it's for a reason other than IMPROVING the team, then please enlighten me. And if we are going to try to make the argument that we can sign cheaper free agents that will ultimately create better chemistry to improve the team, then again...what was the reason for requesting Manning to take the pay cut?

Maybe you're right and the 5th best guard available in free agency is a better fit than the 2nd best guard...or the 7th best DT option is better than the 3rd best. who knows how it all plays out. But on the surface, the point of asking Manning to take the pay cut was in order to obtain MORE free agents at lower costs than it was to obtain/retain better (on paper) free agents.

I think the reason to ask Manning to take a pay cut was to free up money. I dont think it just had to do with one particular thing or the other. Lets face it, Denver wanted Manning to come back but were also very adamant that he cut his salary because they want as much room as possible to sign FA's, draft picks, and/or retain players. But if some players (as it appears with the 3 that MO pointed out) want more money than Denver wants to spend at those positions that does not mean you still dont ask for the paycut. Im confused why any fan would be so offended that they asked him to cut his pay in the first place. Denver isnt made out of money so any time you can free up some space is nothing but a good thing no matter what.

I guess im not too surprised that people on the board are already freaking out, this tends to happen every offseason because Denver doesnt automatically sign players they want or like. Until Elway and the Broncos give me a reason to disagree or question their mentality im just not going to freak out or throw a pity party because our star QB had to give up a little cash. If Manning is "irked" or pouting because he was asked to give up some cash than he can lick my nuts. Dude has made more than enough throughout his career and could of either retired or moved on. Im all about what is best for the Broncos, not a single player. But we havent even gotten to the draft yet and FA just started today. Its not about splitting hairs, its about having faith in the guys upstairs who are doing everything they possibly can to get this team back to the SB with the best chance to win with the right mentality to win. Having a bunch of "me" players just isnt going to cut it.

Buff
03-10-2015, 12:11 PM
Agreed. We all have to wait and see what happens. The point I was trying to make is that based on the talent available...the initial prognosis doesnt look very good.

I hear you - the point I was trying to make is that everyone (including myself) almost universally feels that way, especially after our big scores in FA the last two years... The pool is finite and it feels uncomfortable to let all this talent go to other teams. But we haven't won any rings for winning free agency, so I'm open to the idea that we can still improve the team without landing top tier FAs.

Or we might look back and regret not being more aggressive. Time will tell.