Thread: An inside look at the Denver Broncos’ offer to Rodgers-Cromartie

I have confirmed a Pro Football Talk report that before the Broncos signed Aqib Talib to a six-year, $57 million contract, they offered their own Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie a six-year $54 million deal.

And it’s true, Rodgers-Cromartie turned it down. But before slamming Rodgers-Cromartie or his agent Eugene Parker, the six-year, $54 million proposal was not what it seemed. No NFL contract is what it seems.

AND

The Broncos’ contracts are very well structured. The team is more than fair, even generous, to the player in year one, but then the Broncos protect the team interests after that. This is smart, clean business by general manager John Elway and Broncos’ contract guru Mike Sullivan, the unsung star of the team’s recent free-agent haul of defensive standouts.

rest - interesting - http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/...d-facts/26687/

Love the frontloaded format of these deals. Players know what they're signing and they're very good for the Broncos.

LOL. DRC totally screwed himself there.

Originally Posted by SoCalImport

Love the frontloaded format of these deals. Players know what they're signing and they're very good for the Broncos.

Agreed. It's a "what have you done for me lately?" world, and players want their money up front; one would expect strong motivation from Denvers willingness to provide it.

These front loaded contracts are ideal until year three when a top player points to his salary and says "what have you done for ME lately?".

Originally Posted by Jaded

These front loaded contracts are ideal until year three when a top player points to his salary and says "what have you done for ME lately?".

If he's still performing well enough to ask that question, answer it; if not, small loss. It gives BOTH sides more flexibility; I wouldn't do it that way for everyone, but it makes a lot of sense when signing lots of guys at or near 30 for a SB run, and DRC and Talib are actually in that boat, too: One turns 28 next month and the other did last month; since they play speed positions, they're living on borrowed time, and it's hard to imagine either still being worth $9 million/year at 34 (i.e. when the 6 year deals we offered would expire.)

The main drawback is we don't want our best players coming off rookie contracts to demand a $9 million cap hit every couple years for nearly a decade. Again, not for everyone (e.g. "prove it" deals like DRC got are often justified) but in many cases it's a win for both sides. Since even the best compromises often result in hard feelings, if we can come up with an approach that gives all sides all they want (including later flexibility) it's a good idea.

Originally Posted by Joel

The main drawback is we don't want our best players coming off rookie contracts to demand a $9 million cap hit every couple years for nearly a decade.

So...they should draft poorly on purpose?



"Hey guys, we can't take Demaryius Thomas here. In four years he's going to demand a big contract."

Originally Posted by Jaded

These front loaded contracts are ideal until year three when a top player points to his salary and says "what have you done for ME lately?".

The broncs took DRC to the superbowl...not the other way around, if that doesn't count for doing something for him lately then he can GTFOH.

Nobody in the AFC can touch us until Payton retires, and if Aqib can get on board with fit girls in yoga pants and uggs then that's more hometown love than DRC ever showed.

Originally Posted by RyanC

The broncs took DRC to the superbowl...not the other way around, if that doesn't count for doing something for him lately then he can GTFOH.

Nobody in the AFC can touch us until Payton retires, and if Aqib can get on board with fit girls in yoga pants and uggs then that's more hometown love than DRC ever showed.

I wasn't specifically talking about DRC (who wouldn't agree to such a deal, anyway) but referring to these ******** that sign record contracts with huge money but low salaries and then later use that low salary number as propaganda to try to weasel a new deal.

Originally Posted by Jaded

I wasn't specifically talking about DRC (who wouldn't agree to such a deal, anyway) but referring to these ******** that sign record contracts with huge money but low salaries and then later use that low salary number as propaganda to try to weasel a new deal.

Yeah. .they forget all the up front money they were given and then want to bitch about the salary they are getting paid compared to the other guy. The DB that just signed in NE is the WORST about that Bs.

DRC is going to sign somehwere but I bet its for much less now. He sort of shot himself there. He might still land with a good team ....but it wont be an elite team. He could of had $$$ and the Ws. Anyhow, I am still concerned that Talib gets hurt alot but I do think he is more physical that what we have had.

The New York Jets could replace a Cromartie with a Cromartie. Sort of.

Looking to replace cornerback Antonio Cromartie, whom they released Sunday, the Jets have scheduled a visit with his cousin, free agent Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter reported. Rodgers-Cromartie was scheduled to arrive Friday night.

The cornerback market is dwindling, so this might be the Jets' best option. Rodgers-Cromartie is coming off a good season -- his only season -- with the Denver Broncos, but some are concerned about his motivation. He talked about retirement only two months ago (he backed off), but the topic is sure to come up when he sits down with Jets officials. He reportedly turned down a six-year, $54 million contract from the Broncos, prompting them to turn their attention to Aqib Talib.

rest - http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jet...gers-cromartie

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

So...they should draft poorly on purpose?


"Hey guys, we can't take Demaryius Thomas here. In four years he's going to demand a big contract."

Y'know, the VERY NEXT THING I SAID AFTER WHAT YOU QUOTED. The point was there are exceptions to the rule that front loaded contracts often (NOT always) make sense for both sides.

For exampe: If a Pro Bowler's coming off his ROOKIE contract, it's a bad idea to front load a new one, taking a big cap hit for a couple years just so he can come back and remind us top players at the peak of their earning potential won't play for $1 million/year—then repeat the process semi-annually for nearly a decade. That's the short road to Cap Hell. Another (already cited) good example is DRCs "prove it" deal last year; front loading that contract could've been a more expensive version of the mistake we made with Joe Mays.

Just a friendly suggestion: Stop trolling me long enough to read ALL of what I say before selectively quoting the parts for use as strawmen. We'll all be much happier.