There are 148 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

How can the Denver Broncos spend SO much?

  • Dapro
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 590
I think Denver is the team to beat on paper next year in the AFC, but still not the best team in the NFL. I see them still behind the hawks and the Niners.
I just checked out Denver's schedule for this coming year: They have the NFC West (arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now). They have the AFC East which means a regular season meeting with Brady (hopefully in NE), and they have to play Indy (against Luck - another year developed) and against Cincy. That is along with there own KC, SD and Oak.

Hell they will be lucky to win the division with 9 or 10 wins.
it'll all crumble to s**t once manning goes down again.
The broncos should sign boobie dixon next. Montee ball needs to share the load at rb.
Originally posted by Dapro:
I think Denver is the team to beat on paper next year in the AFC, but still not the best team in the NFL. I see them still behind the hawks and the Niners.

All the offense they put up during the season was great, but a good defense can shut them down, Look what the Hawks did to them in the SB? Their upgrading their defense thats all good and dandy, but it was their offense that couldn't score anything against the Hawk D. As long as you can get to Manning and your secondary can cover.....you beat Denver.
No team in the AFC is even close to any of the NFC upper echelon. That upper echelon of the Niners, Seahawks, Packers and Cardinals. Whoever the NFC representative in SB XLIX will more than likely be the team who wins(49ers!). But reiterating what others have said, the Broncos are going #YOLO to get Peyton another shot at his second ring. They'll crash and burn massively if they do win a Super Bowl and Peyton rides off into the sunset. It won't be pretty if that happens for them. AFC west goes up for grabs between KC and San Diego and Denver becomes bottom feeders for a few years minimum from this governmental spending Elway is doing.
Just because you sign all these big name FA's, doesn't mean you win the SB. May work in the NBA, but don't think it works in the NFL. The niners are playing things smart in my opinion going after a Gabbert and Martin for almost nothing....the key is "almost nothing".
Originally posted by Baldie:
Just because you sign all these big name FA's, doesn't mean you win the SB. May work in the NBA, but don't think it works in the NFL. The niners are playing things smart in my opinion going after a Gabbert and Martin for almost nothing....the key is "almost nothing".

Hell I wish I made Gabbert and Martin's "almost nothing" salary for a year. :)
Can someone do a salary breakdown of their roster?? I would really like to see what the hell they got going on there...$20 mil per season for Peyton, a record contract for Talib, big money for Ware...
Here's a breakdown of Denver's cap situation:
http://overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Broncos&Year=2014

They can spend the money because they have much more cap space than we've had.
Denver, after Demaryius Thomas, isn't spending that much on each of their players. Also, remember, in the offseason only the top 51 players count against the cap.
They're pretty much spending a lot of their money on these free agent guys this year. I bet they're actually trying to load as much onto these guys' cap numbers this year and in the last year(s) so that if they have to cut them in a couple seasons the savings will be much greater than the dead money.

Plus, they're not in too bad of shape considering they have a fair amount of dead money this year with DRC's dead money being over the 2 mil mark.

You can see that they haven't invested much into their offensive line beyond Clady. Which also showed last year, especially in the SB. Their O-line lost the game for them really..... Which it appears that they're not looking to invest into their O-line again.

Denver's biggest front office strength has been getting quality role players who will play for a good price and produce well because of the allure of a SB ring. I was pretty shocked when I saw that they are 27 mil under the cap with PM costing 18.5 against the cap.

What a lot of teams do as well is guarentee the first couple years of the contract instead of some signing bonus money so that a player can get a bigger contract without having to pro-rate a huge cap number for the last couple years of the contract which saves on the "dead" money. contract money is only counted against the cap if the player was actually paid that money or the team is contractually obligated to pay that player the money.

For example: Peyton's contract is as follows:
Yearly base salary:
2012 18 mil no signing bonus cap hit first year
2013 15 mil SB 2.5 mil 17.5 cap hit
2014 15 mil SB 2.5 mil 17.5 cap hit
2015 19 mil SB 2.5 mil 21.5 cap hit
2016 19 mil SB 2.5 mil 21.5 cap hit
10 mil signing bonus plus 2012 base salary gaurenteed = 28 mil in gaurenteed money from the start. If he passed a physical his 2013 salary became gaurenteed
he passed his physical so he had 43 mil in gaurenteed money.
However, since his signing bonus was only 10 mil because he was gaurenteed 28 mil off the bat plus another 15 when he passed a physical there was no need for a huge signing bonus.

You see how they lowered the middle years in order to absorb more cap hit in the first year and then hit the final 2 years harder(which become void if he retires) which the final two years would put him at 39 and 40 years of during those seasons. If he retires at the end of 2014 or 2015 they will only have either 5 or 2.5 mil in "dead" money on a 21.5 mil contract. Which they can choose to absorb over 1 or 2 seasons.

If they put themselves right against the cap this year they only have to find 4 mil in savings next year assuming the cap doesn't go up and they'll recoup with DRC's "dead" money going away - unlikely considering it jumped 5 mil more this year than it was expected to.

The kicker is if Manning has to be cut instead of him retiring or playing out his contract. If he's on the roster at the end of either 2014 or 2015 the next years' salary becomes gaurenteed, meaning he would put them in cap hell, unless he retires of course, which voids his salary gaurentee.
Denver is basically betting on Peyton retiring before 2015 or 2016, in which case, if he remains on the team, they will have a very difficult time re-signing key players who are playing for a discount right now and they're basically going to be a non-factor in FA over the next couple years. Much like we were after we had signed Nate Clements to that huge deal.
Originally posted by SFFanSince72:
I just checked out Denver's schedule for this coming year: They have the NFC West (arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now). They have the AFC East which means a regular season meeting with Brady (hopefully in NE), and they have to play Indy (against Luck - another year developed) and against Cincy. That is along with there own KC, SD and Oak.

Hell they will be lucky to win the division with 9 or 10 wins.

And the only way to beat NFC West teams is with a GREAT running game which Denver simply doesn't have -thinking good to great OL.
[ Edited by NinerGM on Mar 12, 2014 at 1:24 PM ]
JohnnyDel comes in with the educated breakdown once again. Dude, you are my hero.

So I have a question, If Paraag Maranthe (sp?) is supposed to be our cap genius, why is it that we are a measly $10 mil under the cap without a "normally" paid franchise QB, while Denver is sitting at $27 mil under the cap with Peyton Manning, Denaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas, Wes Welker, Shaun Phillips, plus nearly their entire O-Line??? I know you talked about the front office structurinig contracts so there is much more guaranteed money at the beginning of the contract and less prorated signing bonus over the length, but why aren't we saving our future cap space this same way?

You mention the allure of producing and coming to Denver to compete for a ring. Does this mean their role players are taking below market contracts? And if that is the case, why aren't we (or other clubs) using that strategy to get guys to take below market for the sake of building a "Dream Team" to compete for a ring? Basically what it sounds like your saying with this argument is that Elway has sold the Broncos to his role players far more convincingly than any other NFL front office.

Aside: This actually gets to an issue that I've always wondered about. For most players getting to be "the best" and into the HOF is far more rewarding than getting a contract headline in the media - half of which they know they will never earn - yet taking less money for yourself despite "market value" means that you are going to be surrounded by more highly skilled players. The more highly skilled the players surrounding you the better your stats are going to look. (For example a mediocre CB is going to look great if his D-Line doesn't give the opposing QB any time) And finally the better your stats are the more that player is going to be in debate about whether he is the one of the "greats" at his position. (One could argue that Peyton Manning's record breaking season last year was a product of this principle)

Overall I agree that Denver does have some serious holes at this point in the off-season (see RB) but it also appears that Elway is circumventing the current salary cap system by convincing a large number of players to play for less than market value even after their rookie contracts.
[ Edited by SFFanSince72 on Mar 12, 2014 at 2:29 PM ]
Originally posted by joshuatree:
Not a bad strategy IMO. Much better than always being above-average, like the Bears or Dolphins.

But you need an owner willing to swallow the signing bonus penalties. Because each season you have to release players to make up for the previous seasons cuts (cap penalties). As long as guys are being paid their enormous signing bonuses, they'll tag along. Eventually the Broncos will hit rock bottom (Release everyone) and suck for 2 seasons (Released year + Following Cap penalty year). What's the damage? A Top NFL draft pick.

So not a bad strategy, but you need that wealthy owner. Plus it's assumed you probably ran your cupboard dry of young talent. So add an extra year of sucking. But 2-straight NFL drafts of picking high and you should be back in business if you have a good front office: again an owner willing to pay for one.

This formula works bests if you have a stud Quarterback because once you hit rock bottom, you can just set your focus on getting a new Top Draft pick QB and fans are willing to sit through that

If rebuilding were that easy, then there wouldn't be perennial bottom feeders. I'd rather follow the Patriot and Ravens model. It took the Ravens awhile, but they did eventually get their Super Bowl. And then they went crazy with a contract and the bottom fell out from under them.
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by joshuatree:
Not a bad strategy IMO. Much better than always being above-average, like the Bears or Dolphins.

But you need an owner willing to swallow the signing bonus penalties. Because each season you have to release players to make up for the previous seasons cuts (cap penalties). As long as guys are being paid their enormous signing bonuses, they'll tag along. Eventually the Broncos will hit rock bottom (Release everyone) and suck for 2 seasons (Released year + Following Cap penalty year). What's the damage? A Top NFL draft pick.

So not a bad strategy, but you need that wealthy owner. Plus it's assumed you probably ran your cupboard dry of young talent. So add an extra year of sucking. But 2-straight NFL drafts of picking high and you should be back in business if you have a good front office: again an owner willing to pay for one.

This formula works bests if you have a stud Quarterback because once you hit rock bottom, you can just set your focus on getting a new Top Draft pick QB and fans are willing to sit through that

If rebuilding were that easy, then there wouldn't be perennial bottom feeders. I'd rather follow the Patriot and Ravens model. It took the Ravens awhile, but they did eventually get their Super Bowl. And then they went crazy with a contract and the bottom fell out from under them.

the only team i recall that went FA crazy and won was the 94 niners…….

the farm system is what works
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by joshuatree:
Not a bad strategy IMO. Much better than always being above-average, like the Bears or Dolphins.

But you need an owner willing to swallow the signing bonus penalties. Because each season you have to release players to make up for the previous seasons cuts (cap penalties). As long as guys are being paid their enormous signing bonuses, they'll tag along. Eventually the Broncos will hit rock bottom (Release everyone) and suck for 2 seasons (Released year + Following Cap penalty year). What's the damage? A Top NFL draft pick.

So not a bad strategy, but you need that wealthy owner. Plus it's assumed you probably ran your cupboard dry of young talent. So add an extra year of sucking. But 2-straight NFL drafts of picking high and you should be back in business if you have a good front office: again an owner willing to pay for one.

This formula works bests if you have a stud Quarterback because once you hit rock bottom, you can just set your focus on getting a new Top Draft pick QB and fans are willing to sit through that

If rebuilding were that easy, then there wouldn't be perennial bottom feeders. I'd rather follow the Patriot and Ravens model. It took the Ravens awhile, but they did eventually get their Super Bowl. And then they went crazy with a contract and the bottom fell out from under them.

the only team i recall that went FA crazy and won was the 94 niners…….

the farm system is what works

Exactly.