Thread: Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?

Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?



07:18 AM ET 06.21 | The offseason tale of Elvis Dumervil may be exposing the Broncos as penny-pinchers. The good people of Colorado built Broncos owner Pat Bowlen a football stadium so the local NFL team would be a Super Bowl contender forever. But, like pass-rusher [Dumervil], the rest of us are slowly discovering that loyalty in the NFL is often a one-way street. Could it be after all these years of acting the good neighbor, Bowlen and his franchise are now more interested in making money than winning a championship? Maybe Josh McDaniels was hired as coach in Denver to hold down costs, especially with labor strife looming for the NFL just around a dark bend in the road ahead. Dumervil gave his team a league-leading 17 sacks last season. In return, the Broncos have given Dr. Doom the least amount of appreciation possible, leaving the four-year veteran little choice except to sign a $3.168 million tender to give his 110 percent on the field.

Anyone just hear Dumervil on the Jim Rome show this morning?

I really wish I could link this interview--really sounded bad in terms of his contract situation to me...

Am losing a LOT of respect for this franchise fast. Until the team pays someone the "cheap" rap can't be argued. Elvis has been a good soldier. If he went the route of Cutler or Marshall he'd probably have been paid already. That's the lesson.

Lol, now your going to start a shitstorm dude when the McDites read this.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....


Still without contract extensions. Player after player around the league........ forced to sign RFA tenders or to hold out on them a la Mankins/Jackson/etc...


Welcome to the NFL 2010. Singling out the Broncos is just stupid.

Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....


Still without contract extensions. Player after player around the league........ forced to sign RFA tenders or to hold out on them a la Mankins/Jackson/etc...


Welcome to the NFL 2010. Singling out the Broncos is just stupid.

Well, to be fair Brady and Manning are already getting paid quite well for their services. I suppose if Doom already had a solid contract that might make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Northman

Well, to be fair Brady and Manning are already getting paid quite well for their services. I suppose if Doom already had a solid contract that might make a lot of sense.

Given that Dumervil received the highest possible tender, it's clear that he's already got a solid contract under the circumstances. That doesn't somehow single out the Broncos.

Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit

Given that Dumervil received the highest possible tender, it's clear that he's already got a solid contract under the circumstances. That doesn't somehow single out the Broncos.

His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

Originally Posted by Northman

His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

that tender is a damn good contract!

he can shut up and like it. . . .

Originally Posted by Northman

His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....

Originally Posted by dogfish

that tender is a damn good contract!

he can shut up and like it. . . .

Your dead to me.

Anyone who actually thinks Bowlen is trying to give cheap contracts because he is struggling financially really doesn't know how the NFL money structure works. Each NFL team makes MORE than enough money every year to be able to pay their players. As long as there is revenue sharing in the NFL, every team will more than be able to afford to pay their players.

Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit

That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....

and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .

To repeat what I said since, judging by your response, you must have missed it.... Singling out the Broncos

Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?

is stupid.

A good contract under the circumstances is exactly what he's got. I didn't say the circumstances were good. I didn't say he should be happy with the contract. I didn't say he doesn't have a fair argument for asking for more. However, Denver isn't behaving in a manner that's any different from many other NFL teams.

1) Without a CBA between the owners and players, any teams that give out big long term contracts are doing so with out knowing what the cap level is going to be for the 2011 season and beyond. If the cap level is lower then they might be guessing at this time, they could be in a world of hurt.

2) Can anyone show me the cap level for the 2009 season and a list of how much each team actually spent on player's salaries? After all, not giving all of your cap money to one player does not always mean your being cheap. It may be that you simply understand that football is a team sport and you further understand that you need to invest in talent at all positions. If you need to pay so much to keep one all pro that you are only able pay players with 3rd string talent to line up next to him in the starting line up, then your team is in trouble.

As of last year Denver is in great shape in terms of being under the salary cap.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

Green: Means teams have a lot of room.
Black: Means teams have some good room.
Red: Means teams have very little room.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp


1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $22300000
2 Cleveland Browns $17840000
3 Green Bay Packers $16080000
4 Jacksonville Jaguars $14990000
5 Kansas City Chiefs $10910000
6 Tennessee Titans $10490000
7 Denver Broncos $9980000
8 San Francisco 49ers $9370000
9 Cincinnati Bengals $9320000
10 Buffalo Bills $7830000
11 Minnesota Vikings $6730000
12 Atlanta Falcons $6650000
13 Miami Dolphins $6430000
14 Philadelphia Eagles $5830000
15 St. Louis Rams $5710000
16 San Diego Chargers $5160000
17 New Orleans Saints $5100000
18 Chicago Bears $4940000
19 Houston Texans $4690000
20 New England Patriots $4410000
21 Washington Redskins $4380000
22 Pittsburgh Steelers $4020000
23 Arizona Cardinals $3630000
24 Baltimore Ravens $3190000
25 Dallas Cowboys $2810000
26 Indianapolis Colts $2770000
27 NY Giants $2690000
28 Seattle Seahawks $2250000
29 Oakland Raiders $2150000
30 Detroit Lions $1840000
31 Carolina Panthers $1070000 32 NY Jets