Exclusive Franchise Tag for Von Miller..

[pulse]

Well at least we aren't losing him.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/704716498376531968

They will continue working on and negotiating a long-term deal.

[wayninja]

Damn. I was hoping we wouldn't need to use it on him.

[Traveler]

Damn. I was hoping we wouldn't need to use it on him.

My sentiments exactly. Use it to tag Jackson.

[DenBronx]

It's a blessing in disguise. I believe Malik is going to chase the money and you might see a team like Oakland or the Bears overpay for him. Pass rushers don't fall from trees but neither do QBs. I'd be happy keeping Brock instead if Malik is going to cost us more than 12 mill a year.

[Traveler]

It's a blessing in disguise. I believe Malik is going to chase the money and you might see a team like Oakland or the Bears overpay for him. Pass rushers don't fall from trees but neither do QBs. I'd be happy keeping Brock instead if Malik is going to cost us more than 12 mill a year.

Wish I could agree. More than likely Brock is also going to cost us $12+ million a year. Rather go with a known commodity in Jackson.

[DenBronx]

12 mill is pretty low for a good QB, that is the thinking here. But I see why many would rather see Malik here, he's a monster. I just don't want to see us get in cap hell.

[wayninja]

12 mill is pretty low for a good QB, that is the thinking here. But I see why many would rather see Malik here, he's a monster. I just don't want to see us get in cap hell.

That's the point. It's still not 100% clear that Brock is a "Good QB". He might just be Mediocre.

[BroncoWave]

That's the point. It's still not 100% clear that Brock is a "Good QB". He might just be Mediocre.

I tend to agree, and I think I would rather keep Mailk over Brock if push came to shove, but I certainly realize the need for a good QB in this league and will not fault Elway at all if he prioritizes Brock due to that. I'll just have to trust Elway's judgement on if Brock has the goods or not.

[Ravage!!!]

We don't know that Brock is good...but the QB is the most important position on teh field. DESPITE the way the team won the Super Bowl this year. It's not hard to see the teams in the playoffs htis year, and see how that is related to the guy playing behind center.

The QB position is a HUGE HUGE hole to simply put up to "chance" and hope. Especially when you have a defense that can keep scores close. We won't be coming close to a Super Bowl next season without improving the QB position. Drafting, simply is no sure thing at all. Os has to be the top priority over a DT at this point.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The Denver Broncos applied their exclusive franchise tag to Super Bowl 50 MVP Von Miller on Tuesday.

Unless Miller and the Broncos can come to terms on a long-term deal by July 15, Miller will make $14.129 million in 2016 under the franchise-tag designation. And since it's an exclusive tag, that will prohibit Miller from talking to any other teams.

"Designating Von as our franchise player gives us the time to continue working toward a long-term agreement," Broncos general manager John Elway said in a statement. "We've had productive talks with Von's representation, and we'll continue those discussions with the goal of making sure Von remains a Bronco well into the future."

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14876572/denver-broncos-apply-franchise-tag-lb-von-miller

[Denver Native (Carol)]

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Von Miller wasn't viewing the decision to use the franchise tag on him as a setback, and neither will the Broncos.

"Whatever it takes to get it done, I'm down for it," he said Monday night when he joined NFL Network's Total Access for an in-studio appearance, and given the Broncos' past success in getting franchise players signed to long-term extensions, there is ample reason to believe both sides will come together for a long-term deal in the coming months.

Broncos Executive Vice President/General Manager John Elway met with Miller's agent, Joby Branion, at the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis last week and described the talks as "positive."

"I think he's done a real nice job with how he's handled everything and I just think that he's a guy we're going to keep around," Elway said last Thursday, "so we'll get something figured out."

The Broncos have used the franchise tag in four of the last five years, eventually getting kicker Matt Prater (2012), left tackle Ryan Clady (2013) and wide receiver Demaryius Thomas (2015) signed to long-term contracts of at least four years apiece.

But in none of those instances did they use the exclusive franchise tag, as they did on Miller. In fact, no team has used the exclusive tag since the New Orleans Saints gave it to quarterback Drew Brees in 2012.

rest - http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/What-the-Broncos-decision-to-tag-Von-Miller-means/6dbb3b56-9841-49b2-a0b1-5df020dd3bec?utm_content=buffer9f510&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[MOtorboat]

My sentiments exactly. Use it to tag Jackson.

Miller is the only free agent worth the tag.

[chazoe60]

Miller is the only free agent worth the tag.

Absolutely agree. People are really overvaluing Malik.

[Dreadnought]

Absolutely agree. People are really overvaluing Malik.

Very much so. We have bigger and more important fish to fry

[chazoe60]

Very much so. We have bigger and more important fish to fry

I like Malik but considering we're paying Wolfe a little over $9M/yr and he contributed 5 more tackles and .5 more sacks in 4 fewer games I can't see how paying Malik $12M or more per year is a wise investment. Combine that with Malik's tendency for 15yard penalties and I'm fine with watching him leave. In a perfect world we keep him, but we know that's not the case.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

from article:


Jackson, the 26-year-old former fifth round pick, just earned a Super Bowl ring with the Broncos and was drafted under Bears head coach John Fox's time in Denver.

Jackson, while not a prolific pass rusher (there can only be one JJ Watt), he has 14.5 sacks in the last three seasons.

Jackson is the 16th ranked free agent according to ProFootballFocus.com's new grading system with an 86.9 and he is the seventh best free agent according to SBNation.

The next logical question is, how much is Jackson going to cost?

Looking over DE contracts on Spotrac, the numbers seem to vary. It could be anywhere in the $9 million per year range to $11 or $12 million per year. The really high paid guys are the sack artists like Watt, Mario Williams and Robert Quinn.

Since Jackson doesn't have the number sack numbers, he wouldn't command that kind of salary. I'm thinking somewhere in the $9-$10 million per year.

The lingering question with Jackson is how much better can he get? Jackson has been a one year starter and while he played well and recorded 5.5 sacks, he also played next to Demarcus Ware and Von Miller, two of the very best pass rushers in the league. Can Jackson be as successful with slightly less talent around him?

full article - http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2016/2/29/11133186/chicago-bears-free-agency-target-denver-broncos-malik-jackson

The numbers this person is quoting is lower than what we have read that Malik wants

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

from article:



full article - http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2016/2/29/11133186/chicago-bears-free-agency-target-denver-broncos-malik-jackson

The numbers this person is quoting is lower than what we have read that Malik wants

That sounds like a fan hoping they can get him for that price tag, not having done the homework on what he's already reportedly been offered.

[wayninja]

I'd do almost anything to keep the Defense together. If we are going to overpay, that's where I'd like the money to go. Just my opinion.

[Dreadnought]

I like Malik but considering we're paying Wolfe a little over $9M/yr and he contributed 5 more tackles and .5 more sacks in 4 fewer games I can't see how paying Malik $12M or more per year is a wise investment. Combine that with Malik's tendency for 15yard penalties and I'm fine with watching him leave. In a perfect world we keep him, but we know that's not the case.

I personally rank keeping Osweiler a much higher priority than Malik Jackson, FWIW, which ain't much in the end. Useful QB's are pretty thin on the ground, and the odds of finding a guy in the draft pretty low, esp. in an era where so many college teams turn out spread playing QB's, most (nearly all IMO) of whom will never cut it in the NFL. We had the golden opportunity to actually develop a pro style QB over the span of a few years, and I think it would be a terrible mistake to throw that away.

[NightTerror218]

I'd do almost anything to keep the Defense together. If we are going to overpay, that's where I'd like the money to go. Just my opinion.

No way. You will not repeat with worst offense in the league. And yes that is how the offense played in the playoffs, they had worse numbers then the #32 ranked offense through the season.

Offense needs to step up big and I am ok with defense taking a small step back. 8-9/11 starters are returning...

Defense has 8-9 starters returning. I say that is keeping the core together.

[BroncoNut]

where do they put the franchise tag? in the ear? nose?

[MOtorboat]

where do they put the franchise tag? in the ear? nose?

Ear. Like a heifer.

[BroncoNut]

Ear. Like a heifer.

say what?

[wayninja]

No way. You will not repeat with worst offense in the league. And yes that is how the offense played in the playoffs, they had worse numbers then the #32 ranked offense through the season.

Offense needs to step up big and I am ok with defense taking a small step back. 8-9/11 starters are returning...

Defense has 8-9 starters returning. I say that is keeping the core together.

So, we can win the SB with the worst offense in the league, but your argument is "No way we can do it again!" Sorry, but that's not very convincing.

And why does it have to be the worst? It was the worst largely because Peyton threw a million interceptions in the regular season and went conservative in the post season. I'm betting no matter who we bring in, that would be a tough act to follow.

I simply think it's more prudent to focus on the guys that got you the ring, that's all. I'm not saying we should aim for the worst offense, I just don't think we have to overpay a QB to be a game manager.

[BroncoJoe]

Our offense simply has to get better. Hopefully, Brock can do that.

Our defense can be a bit lower on the scale - as long as the offense improves. Frankly, I'd take a somewhat slimmed down version of our :defense: while getting better on offense.

The defense has no where to go but down anyway. The offense has a lot of room to improve.

Either way, in JFE I trust. The Broncos will not get into "cap hell" as someone previously stated with John guiding the ship.

[NightTerror218]

So, we can win the SB with the worst offense in the league, but your argument is "No way we can do it again!" Sorry, but that's not very convincing.

And why does it have to be the worst? It was the worst largely because Peyton threw a million interceptions in the regular season and went conservative in the post season. I'm betting no matter who we bring in, that would be a tough act to follow.

I simply think it's more prudent to focus on the guys that got you the ring, that's all. I'm not saying we should aim for the worst offense, I just don't think we have to overpay a QB to be a game manager.

The fact is that no top defense has ever repeated. In NFL history. 85 bears, 2000 ravens, no exception have repeated.

The playoff offense was worse than the worst regular season offense. Peyton did not throw a million ints in the post season. I am talking about post season play when defense was playing insane.

Team needs some Balance and offense really needs to step up.

[wayninja]

The fact is that no top defense has ever repeated. In NFL history. 85 bears, 2000 ravens, no exception have repeated.

The playoff offense was worse than the worst regular season offense. Peyton did not throw a million ints in the post season. I am talking about post season play when defense was playing insane.

Team needs some Balance and offense really needs to step up.

I get it, but never been done before isn't much of an argument. It will be that way until someone does it. I'm not sure it's statistically meaningful with only 50 superbowls one way or the other.

I never said Peyton threw a million ints in the postseason, I said he went conservative (probably so he didn't throw INT's would be my guess).

I'm not against balance. But as Joe pointed out the only place for our defense to go is down, the reverse is true with our offense. Balance away, just remember how you got rings last year is all. I definitely see giving Brock over 12-14 million a year as risky. Especially if that ends up costing us Malik or Trevathan. Although I'm sure at least one of those guys is gone no matter what we do.

[Dapper Dan]

I like Malik but considering we're paying Wolfe a little over $9M/yr and he contributed 5 more tackles and .5 more sacks in 4 fewer games I can't see how paying Malik $12M or more per year is a wise investment. Combine that with Malik's tendency for 15yard penalties and I'm fine with watching him leave. In a perfect world we keep him, but we know that's not the case.

Yes, but Malik also has comparable career stats while starting have as many games. And it's not Malik's fault Wolfe was suspended 4 games for PEDs this season.

[Dapper Dan]

Is Oz ever going to be a breakout player or just a game manager? I know top QBs are hard to find but game managers, not so much.

[Ravage!!!]

I'm not willing to bet on the unprecidented purely because its a 'possibility.' Why try to beat the odds when it makes so much more sense to go with what we can see works on a much much more regular basis. Know what the 2000 Ravens thought, that they didn't need to improve their offense. Know when they finally went back to the Super Bowl? When they lost several of their defensive super stars and improved the offense.

Joe is dead on, here. There really is SUCH a high improbility of the defense being able to repeat their performance that it makes SOO much more sense to improve the offense so that we can take the heat off the defense. Losing a couple players from the defense in order to boost that offense makes so much more sense. The risk of Brock is just sooooo much more worth it than the risk of losing Malik can Trev.

[Ravage!!!]

Is Oz ever going to be a breakout player or just a game manager? I know top QBs are hard to find but game managers, not so much.

I don't know. I don't think Game manager is a bad thing. I know its been used as such an insult to suggest a QB is a "game manager"...but in reality, I want a QB that manages the game. The greatest QBs are great at managing the game.

GOOD 'game managers' are not easy to find, at all.

[Dapper Dan]

I don't know. I don't think Game manager is a bad thing. I know its been used as such an insult to suggest a QB is a "game manager"...but in reality, I want a QB that manages the game. The greatest QBs are great at managing the game.

GOOD 'game managers' are not easy to find, at all.

I'm not disagreeing.

[Dapper Dan]

I'm not willing to bet on the unprecidented purely because its a 'possibility.' Why try to beat the odds when it makes so much more sense to go with what we can see works on a much much more regular basis. Know what the 2000 Ravens thought, that they didn't need to improve their offense. Know when they finally went back to the Super Bowl? When they lost several of their defensive super stars and improved the offense.

Joe is dead on, here. There really is SUCH a high improbility of the defense being able to repeat their performance that it makes SOO much more sense to improve the offense so that we can take the heat off the defense. Losing a couple players from the defense in order to boost that offense makes so much more sense. The risk of Brock is just sooooo much more worth it than the risk of losing Malik can Trev.

Well, what have those teams tried to do? Did they fail to repeat because they lost defenders and tried to improve the offense?

[Ravage!!!]

Well, what have those teams tried to do? Did they fail to repeat because they lost defenders and tried to improve the offense?

No.. they figured they had a defense that allowed the fewest points in NFL history, and didn't need to improve their offense. "Spend the money on the defense, and it doesn't matter who the QB is." That's why the 2000 Ravens went with the kid out of KC, Grbac. They could 'save cap' with Grbac and just keep the defense. That then went to Blake.... then Boller.

i'm sure they lost players. Every Super Bowl winning team generally does. But the thought process was "we don't need a good QB with this defense. Save the money..... who cares ow many points we score if the other team can't score?" It just doesn't happen that way.

[Dapper Dan]

No.. they figured they had a defense that allowed the fewest points in NFL history, and didn't need to improve their offense. "Spend the money on the defense, and it doesn't matter who the QB is." That's why the 2000 Ravens went with the kid out of KC, Grbac. They could 'save cap' with Grbac and just keep the defense. That then went to Blake.... then Boller.

i'm sure they lost players. Every Super Bowl winning team generally does. But the thought process was "we don't need a good QB with this defense. Save the money..... who cares ow many points we score if the other team can't score?" It just doesn't happen that way.

Grbac just came off a Pro Bowl year. He came in and said he was going to make the team better. I'm not so sure they saved money. Dilfer signed elsewhere as a back up.

[Ravage!!!]

Grbac just came off a Pro Bowl year. He came in and said he was going to make the team better. I'm not so sure they saved money. Dilfer signed elsewhere as a back up.

Grbac stunk, and everyone knew it. He MIGHT have been considered to be a 'better option' than Dilfer, however (although Dilfer was really just the back-up for that Super Bowl winning season).

[TXBRONC]

So, we can win the SB with the worst offense in the league, but your argument is "No way we can do it again!" Sorry, but that's not very convincing.

And why does it have to be the worst? It was the worst largely because Peyton threw a million interceptions in the regular season and went conservative in the post season. I'm betting no matter who we bring in, that would be a tough act to follow.

I simply think it's more prudent to focus on the guys that got you the ring, that's all. I'm not saying we should aim for the worst offense, I just don't think we have to overpay a QB to be a game manager.

I don't know of any teams that have won back to back championships with the model you're suggesting. A few have tried and failed.

[TXBRONC]

I get it, but never been done before isn't much of an argument. It will be that way until someone does it. I'm not sure it's statistically meaningful with only 50 superbowls one way or the other.

I never said Peyton threw a million ints in the postseason, I said he went conservative (probably so he didn't throw INT's would be my guess).

I'm not against balance. But as Joe pointed out the only place for our defense to go is down, the reverse is true with our offense. Balance away, just remember how you got rings last year is all. I definitely see giving Brock over 12-14 million a year as risky. Especially if that ends up costing us Malik or Trevathan. Although I'm sure at least one of those guys is gone no matter what we do.

History shows that using your line of thinking fails and that isn't convincing?

[Dapper Dan]

Most teams don't repeat, period. We can look at history all we want but it really predicts nothing.

[ShaneFalco]

Need to keep b marsh

[elsid13]

Need to keep b marsh

He is RFA, he isn't going anywhere this year.

[NightTerror218]

Most teams don't repeat, period. We can look at history all we want but it really predicts nothing.

And some have not even sniffed close to a repeat.

[Cugel]

No.. they figured they had a defense that allowed the fewest points in NFL history, and didn't need to improve their offense. "Spend the money on the defense, and it doesn't matter who the QB is." That's why the 2000 Ravens went with the kid out of KC, Grbac. They could 'save cap' with Grbac and just keep the defense. That then went to Blake.... then Boller.

i'm sure they lost players. Every Super Bowl winning team generally does. But the thought process was "we don't need a good QB with this defense. Save the money..... who cares ow many points we score if the other team can't score?" It just doesn't happen that way.

Not only did the '86 Bears, the 2001 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, or the 2014-15 Seahawks fail to repeat, it happened just like you said. Those teams won with great defense and Jim McMahon, Trent Dilfer, & Brad Johnson at QB. Russell Wilson was the only decent QB among them, which was why the Seahawks at least went back.

By 2003, with his formerly great defense in decline, Brian Billick was desperate for a QB and took Kyle Boller #19 overall. For the next 5 years Billick kept insisting that Boller was "his guy" - then he got fired and they got rid of Boller. Then in 2008 they went out and drafted Joe Flacco #18 overall. Four years later they won the SB.

Make a wrong choice at QB and you get fired. Story of the NFL.

Great defense does win championships. But historically great defenses just don't last. Everybody wants to get paid. Guys start to leave. The team chemistry is never quite the same, the ball doesn't bounce your way in future years, you don't get lucky with injuries like you did in 2015.

As Hunter Thompson said in another context:


"There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

And that I think was the handle - that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense, we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. We had all the momentum, we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

So now, you can go up on a steep hill and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back."

[wayninja]

I'm not willing to bet on the unprecidented purely because its a 'possibility.' Why try to beat the odds when it makes so much more sense to go with what we can see works on a much much more regular basis. Know what the 2000 Ravens thought, that they didn't need to improve their offense. Know when they finally went back to the Super Bowl? When they lost several of their defensive super stars and improved the offense.

Joe is dead on, here. There really is SUCH a high improbility of the defense being able to repeat their performance that it makes SOO much more sense to improve the offense so that we can take the heat off the defense. Losing a couple players from the defense in order to boost that offense makes so much more sense. The risk of Brock is just sooooo much more worth it than the risk of losing Malik can Trev.

It's not black or white. I'm not saying to improve one and scuttle the other. Brock is (mostly) a gamble. And could be a very expensive one. Malik and Trevathan are known quantities. That is all.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The steel curtain won 4 SuperBowls in 5 years. I don't think anyone credits a high powered offense for those wins.

[wayninja]

History shows that using your line of thinking fails and that isn't convincing?

Jesus. There's 31 non-superbowl winners per year. Pick a strategy. It will probably fail.

[TXBRONC]

The steel curtain won 4 SuperBowls in 5 years. I don't think anyone credits a high powered offense for those wins.

The '78 and '79 wins are credited to the offense.

[TXBRONC]

Jesus. There's 31 non-superbowl winners per year. Pick a strategy. It will probably fail.

Well your suggestion has been tried before and failed. Crying about it and about people disagreeing isn't going make it anymore viable.

[wayninja]

Well your suggestion has been tried before and failed. Crying about it and about people disagreeing isn't going make it anymore viable.

No, I'm wrong, I see the light now. Brock is the answer baby. Unless you want to hedge on that one too.

[TXBRONC]

No, I'm wrong, I see the light now. Brock is the answer baby. Unless you want to hedge on that one too.

I haven't hedged my bets on anything. Maybe you can add something constructive to conversation instead of being obtuse.

[wayninja]

I haven't hedged my bets on anything. Maybe you can add something constructive to conversation instead of being obtuse.

Right, accusing me of crying and shouting that history dictates all future events is "constructive". Sure thing, Tx.

I'm just glad we are in the same division with a team who can't win the superbowl, because they never have before. History FTW.

[BroncoJoe]

:popcorn:

[GEM]

Tx and ninja....this is carrying on to more than one thread now. Put each other on ignore or don't post with each other. Take a breather, guys.

[Timmy!]

So.....Tx, Ninja, what do you two think about Tebow?

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The '78 and '79 wins are credited to the offense.
No Joe Green, no superbowl. They don't even make it to any of those bowls without joe green.