PDA

View Full Version : Speculation: Doom wants at least $65 mil from the Broncos


BroncoSojia
06-15-2010, 10:37 AM
http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/7439/Elvis-wants-at-least--65-million-from-Broncos/Default.aspx

Mike Klis of the Denver Post reports only a committed future separates the Broncos from Elvis Dumervil. As reported Monday, Dumervil, Denver's all-pro pass-rushing linebacker, signed his first- and third-round restricted free-agent tender Monday, ensuring that he will play for no less than $3.168 million this season.

Had he not signed his tender in protest of not getting a multiyear contract from the Broncos, Dumervil's salary could have been reduced to about $630,000.

After leading the NFL with 17 sacks last year, and recording 43 sacks in four years while making a combined $2.015 million, Dumervil is hoping to be among the league's five highest-paid pass rushers. That would mean a multiyear contractworth at least $65 million, with the guaranteed portion about $40 million.

At this point Dumervil's asking price is a bit steep for the Broncos, although general manager Brian Xanders continues to negotiate with Gary Wichard, the linebacker's agent.

If the Broncos can't reach an agreement with Dumervil by their season opener Sept. 12 at Jacksonville, there's a good chance he will play out this year, then move on to another team through unrestricted free agency.

azbroncfan
06-15-2010, 10:38 AM
3 mil a year is a steal then.

Pseudofool
06-15-2010, 10:39 AM
I like Elvis a lot, but guaranteeing him forty million? Yipes.

55CrushEm
06-15-2010, 10:39 AM
http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/7439/Elvis-wants-at-least--65-million-from-Broncos/Default.aspx

Correct me if I'm wrong.....but isn't Dumervil a RESTRICTED free agent for one more year after this year? Due to the lack of a new CBA. I thought players who were 4 years in the league had TWO years of restricted free agency?

Rabb
06-15-2010, 10:41 AM
it's a good thing this exact thing wasn't just posted in the other merged Doom thread

and this is speculation, not what he said he wants, really irresponsible thread title

TheReverend
06-15-2010, 10:46 AM
Fair, imo

Mr.Meanie
06-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Hey it's not my money. Let's do this!

Hercules Rockefeller
06-15-2010, 10:53 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong.....but isn't Dumervil a RESTRICTED free agent for one more year after this year? Due to the lack of a new CBA. I thought players who were 4 years in the league had TWO years of restricted free agency?

You are correct

yerner
06-15-2010, 10:55 AM
40 million for a linebacker? I'm not sure he's worth that. How many other guys get that money and are a reason that the team wins? Dwight Freeney is all I can think of right now.

baja
06-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Shiit this will push the cost of a hotdog to 20 bucks

bronco militia
06-15-2010, 11:10 AM
it's a good thing this exact thing wasn't just posted in the other merged Doom thread

and this is speculation, not what he said he wants, really irresponsible thread title

this!

OBF1
06-15-2010, 11:10 AM
40 million for a linebacker? I'm not sure he's worth that. How many other guys get that money and are a reason that the team wins? Dwight Freeney is all I can think of right now.

The reason Indy wins is a guy named Peyton Manning.

Los Broncos
06-15-2010, 11:11 AM
Shiit this will push the cost of a hotdog to 20 bucks

No more dogs for me then.

lifeafter elway
06-15-2010, 11:14 AM
I think we should pay him. He is a class guy (something the organization supposedly values) and productive (something I value). If this is what it costs to make him a top 5 guy, then I think he deserves it.

I can't wait to see him in his second year at LB. Should be fun!

colonelbeef
06-15-2010, 11:18 AM
I can't even begin to worry about the amounts payed out for contracts at this point.. there are way too many moving parts, particularly with unguaranteed NFL contracts to make any sort of definitive statement about how this will affect the bottom line past this year and perhaps the next.

If this is the going rate for edge rushers with his production, so be it. He is a good player who punches above his weight, overachievers deserve their fair share too.

azbroncfan
06-15-2010, 11:21 AM
Shiit this will push the cost of a hotdog to 20 bucks

And 15 dollar beers.

ward63
06-15-2010, 11:27 AM
When people say it's not my money, that's not true at all. Tickets get raised, hot dogs, beer, etc.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 11:28 AM
Until the owners can get something in writing guaranteeing that there will be football in 2011 and that the salary cap under the future CBA will not be any less than it was last year, they'd be absolutely foolish to sign any contract with any player that makes them a top 5 paid player at their position.

There's a reason Peyton Manning and Tom Brady haven't worked out new deals yet, even though both owners were very vocal about getting deals done as soon as the season was up.

It would be crippling for a franchise to lock themselves into huge numbers if there is the slightest chance of a reduced cap.....or no football at all.

tsiguy96
06-15-2010, 11:35 AM
When people say it's not my money, that's not true at all. Tickets get raised, hot dogs, beer, etc.

people here think its either his money or the owners money, they dont tend t understand that every time a player gets a mega-contract, it raises prices on every single bronco related item.

Popps
06-15-2010, 11:38 AM
The problem with Doom is that he's still developing his skill-set at LB.

At 65M, you want a complete, dominant player.

He's certainly a top-flight pass-rusher. But, imagine if you broke down his salary into categories and paid him x-amount for pass rushing, x-amount for run defense, etc.
I just have a feeling that most estimates would have him coming up short of being worth top 5 money. He's not a dominant, complete player yet. He's a dominant pass-rushing specialist.

That said... I think we need to do whatever we need to do to keep him. Sign a long-term deal. In 4 years, this won't seem like that much money. I don't think he's the type of talent you can build a defense around, but he's the only threat we've got out there. We certainly can't let him walk.

broncswin
06-15-2010, 11:42 AM
Not real sure this is what he is really asking, but if so...too much for one great year...I love Doom, but I don't think he is worth that...JMHO

Taco John
06-15-2010, 11:43 AM
That's a tough nut to swallow, IMO.

Mountain Bronco
06-15-2010, 11:44 AM
Doom is great, but not worth 40 mill guaranteed.

meangene
06-15-2010, 11:45 AM
Those numbers are pretty close to what Suggs got in Baltimore last year. I do think that is in the ballpark for a top pass-rushing OLB who is just coming into the prime of his career. I suspect he would take a little less given the uncertainty of the 2011 season and the CBA situation. You are going to have to pay some players elite money to succeed in this league. The key is paying it to guys with elite talent who are high character team players. Doom fits that bill.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 11:48 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong.....but isn't Dumervil a RESTRICTED free agent for one more year after this year? Due to the lack of a new CBA. I thought players who were 4 years in the league had TWO years of restricted free agency?

This is the last year of the CBA, when the 2010 league year expires there is no CBA and thus no league. That means as soon as a new CBA is in place every player with 4 or more accrued seasons of NFL experience will become unrestricted free agents, including Dumervil.

The 2011 league year will only begin once a new CBA is signed by both parties.

bowtown
06-15-2010, 11:48 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong.....but isn't Dumervil a RESTRICTED free agent for one more year after this year? Due to the lack of a new CBA. I thought players who were 4 years in the league had TWO years of restricted free agency?

Yes, this is correct as things stand right now, but if a new CBA gets put in place before the end of the season, I guarantee it won't include a provision that a player with 5 years experience is still a RFA.

broncswin
06-15-2010, 11:49 AM
Those numbers are pretty close to what Suggs got in Baltimore last year. I do think that is in the ballpark for a top pass-rushing OLB who is just coming into the prime of his career. I suspect he would take a little less given the uncertainty of the 2011 season and the CBA situation. You are going to have to pay some players elite money to succeed in this league. The key is paying it to guys with elite talent who are high character team players. Doom fits that bill.


That is a great post...I love Doom and think this team needs high characters guys like him, but I am not sure he is worth elite money yet...the key word is Yet.

Tough decision for this franchise to make in these times

bowtown
06-15-2010, 11:50 AM
Fair, imo

Yep. Get it done.

ColoradoDarin
06-15-2010, 11:52 AM
If Doom was as good at stopping the run as he is at getting to the QB, I'd be all for paying him that amount. As it stands, this is probably a bit much for him, but hopefully we're not that far apart to get a deal done.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 11:52 AM
40 million for a linebacker? I'm not sure he's worth that. How many other guys get that money and are a reason that the team wins? Dwight Freeney is all I can think of right now.

Demarcus Ware, Dwight Freeney, Terrell Suggs, James Harrison, Will Smith, I believe they are the 5 highest paid pass rushers in the league.

I think a contract in the James Harrison/Calvin Pace level is about spot on. Call it 50 mill and 20-some guaranteed over 6 years.

broncosteven
06-15-2010, 12:00 PM
The reason Indy wins is a guy named Peyton Manning.

Med made a good argument that Indy struggled in the playoffs because Freeney and Mathis went down.


The reasons I would pull the trigger is that he is young, injury free so far, next to Bailey he is the only other Pro-Bowler on the team, I would like to see the history of letting homegrown DL talent leaving and flourishing elsewhere stop.

From what I read Wink's system of pressuring via Blitzing will be perfect for Doom and really would be worthless with out a legit passrusher like Doom to execute.

Sure he is not perfect on run downs but he has the arms to get low and wrapup in run game as well as get to the passer.

Signing Doom is a no brainer, if they don't want to lock him up that high then trade him now.

gunns
06-15-2010, 12:03 PM
That is a great post...I love Doom and think this team needs high characters guys like him, but I am not sure he is worth elite money yet...the key word is Yet.

Tough decision for this franchise to make in these times

I agree, it will be nice to have this year to see if he is consistent in his play....and if he does want $40 mil guaranteed, he better improve on stopping the run.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 12:05 PM
This is the last year of the CBA, when the 2010 league year expires there is no CBA and thus no league. That means as soon as a new CBA is in place every player with 4 or more accrued seasons of NFL experience will become unrestricted free agents, including Dumervil.
.

This is simply not true as of today. The new CBA hasn't even been put in draft form yet, so you have no way to know for sure how it will look in final execution form. It could very easily contain tags and provisions never seen or heard of before that could keep players on their original teams longer. Obviously the owners would have to give something up to accomplish this, but it's not impossible.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 12:06 PM
I would like to see the history of letting homegrown DL talent leaving and flourishing elsewhere stop.

It would have to start before it could stop.

bowtown
06-15-2010, 12:08 PM
Paying Doom now is more than paying for a player, it's paying to grow a philosophy and mindset.

SouthStndJunkie
06-15-2010, 12:08 PM
Sack masters get paid....plain and simple.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dumervil will get 15+ sacks again next year and well into the future.

Dumervil set sack records in high school and in college. He's notched double digit sacks in the 4-3 and in the 3-4 in the NFL.

There are not too many guys walking around that have sacked the QB 17 times in a year....and the ones that have are paid very well for it.

HEAV
06-15-2010, 12:12 PM
I like Doom...but he needs to look at what's going on in the American economy and the fact that 2011 could be a non-NFL year...that's a Sh1t load of cash.

TonyR
06-15-2010, 12:13 PM
Until the owners can get something in writing guaranteeing that there will be football in 2011 and that the salary cap under the future CBA will not be any less than it was last year, they'd be absolutely foolish to sign any contract with any player that makes them a top 5 paid player at their position.

There's a reason Peyton Manning and Tom Brady haven't worked out new deals yet, even though both owners were very vocal about getting deals done as soon as the season was up.

It would be crippling for a franchise to lock themselves into huge numbers if there is the slightest chance of a reduced cap.....or no football at all.

Exactly. Good post. Glad to see some people are paying attention.

broncosteven
06-15-2010, 12:13 PM
It would have to start before it could stop.

Pryce is still playing, Traylor played well for 2 other teams before retiring, Hayward was still with Jags last I knew, Bert Berry played very well for AZ before retiring.

Anyone of those guys were better than the crap they have been fielding the last decade.

SouthStndJunkie
06-15-2010, 12:16 PM
I like Doom...but he needs to look at what's going on in the American economy and the fact that 2011 could be a non-NFL year...that's a Sh1t load of cash.

Dumervil has played dirt cheap the last 4 years at about $500,000 a year, which is nothing in today's NFL.

He's never b****ed or complained about it once....it's his time to get a big payday.

At 26 years old, this is the biggest contract he will be able to demand. Only a fool would expect him to take less than what he is worth.

broncosteven
06-15-2010, 12:26 PM
Dumervil has played dirt cheap the last 4 years at about $500,000 a year, which is nothing in today's NFL.

He's never b****ed or complained about it once....it's his time to get a big payday.

At 26 years old, this is the biggest contract he will be able to demand. Only a fool would expect him to take less than what he is worth.

And it is not like we have anyone else who is worth top 5 money at his position on our roster.

Even with the CBA looming I doubt 1 large Capped contract would cripple the franchise. Now if we had to pay both him and Marshall then I we would be in a bind.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 12:33 PM
Pryce is still playing, Traylor played well for 2 other teams before retiring, Hayward was still with Jags last I knew, Bert Berry played very well for AZ before retiring.

Anyone of those guys were better than the crap they have been fielding the last decade.

You said "home grown" and then "flourishing elsewhere". Most of the guys above don't apply.

Hayward? No way. He's been gone 4 years and had one decent year for them which wasn't as good as his last two years with us.

Berry wasn't really home grown (3 years with Indy), nor did he really flourish after he left. In 6 years with Arizona, he had one good year and pretty much blew and was hurt for the other 5.

Traylor wasn't homegrown.

Pryce had to go. We've been over that one. At the time, he wasn't playing up to the level of his pay.

HEAV
06-15-2010, 12:35 PM
Dumervil has played dirt cheap the last 4 years at about $500,000 a year, which is nothing in today's NFL.

He's never b****ed or complained about it once....it's his time to get a big payday.

At 26 years old, this is the biggest contract he will be able to demand. Only a fool would expect him to take less than what he is worth.

That's why he's getting 3+ Mill this year. He played under the rookie contract that he got.

While he has played above that deal, you don't pay a player for the past, you pay for future production (potential). Only problem is the future is dark! No labor agreement an both the players and the owners are circle'n the wagons preparing for no football in 2011.

This isn't the time to be dropping major coin (guaranteed) on a player. Without a labor agreement many teams are going to face this kind of issue.

uplink
06-15-2010, 12:39 PM
He has only had one truly exceptional year (last year), hasn't shown he is work the money yet.

baja
06-15-2010, 12:50 PM
Dumervil has played dirt cheap the last 4 years at about $500,000 a year, which is nothing in today's NFL.

He's never b****ed or complained about it once....it's his time to get a big payday.

At 26 years old, this is the biggest contract he will be able to demand. <b>Only a fool would expect him to take less than what he is worth.</b>

I don't think anyone here would argue that.

I issue is establishing his value.

Is he a one trick pony and if so what is that worth.

Is he, in the eyes of his coaches, ready to blossom into a 60 million dollar player

Lomax
06-15-2010, 01:00 PM
The problem with Doom is that he's still developing his skill-set at LB.

At 65M, you want a complete, dominant player.

He's certainly a top-flight pass-rusher. But, imagine if you broke down his salary into categories and paid him x-amount for pass rushing, x-amount for run defense, etc.
I just have a feeling that most estimates would have him coming up short of being worth top 5 money. He's not a dominant, complete player yet. He's a dominant pass-rushing specialist.

That said... I think we need to do whatever we need to do to keep him. Sign a long-term deal. In 4 years, this won't seem like that much money. I don't think he's the type of talent you can build a defense around, but he's the only threat we've got out there. We certainly can't let him walk.

I feel the same way about Marshall. Love the way he plays, but he's sort of a one-trick-pony.

Broncoman13
06-15-2010, 01:04 PM
6 years $65m... $15m in bonus money up front. $5m, $6m, 7m, and $8m in 2010-2013 then $12m and $15m in the next two years... which he will likely never see.

gtown
06-15-2010, 01:08 PM
He might not be Lawrence Taylor, but Doom is worth it. If he can't get a big payday from the Broncos, then who can? It would be taking the team first concept too far to be cheap here, when Doom is already a genuine pro bowler.

Broncoman13
06-15-2010, 01:11 PM
I figure he will get about $7.5m per year when it comes down to it. The contract may look bigger but that will be the actual average, even if it works out to be a 6 year deal with the last two years boosting the overall number. If he is performing at a high level the Broncos will be motivated to redo his deal and Doom will be in for another big pay day at 30. Meanwhile, he will have put $30m in his pocket.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 01:12 PM
He might not be Lawrence Taylor, but Doom is worth it. If he can't get a big payday from the Broncos, then who can? It would be taking the team first concept too far to be cheap here, when Doom is already a genuine pro bowler.

Look, in a normal year, 90% of the board would agree.....but this is not a normal year. Guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady aren't being shown the money either. And other top RFAs, just like Doom, on other teams aren't being shown the money.

VERY FEW TEAMS have thrown big money at their RFAs so far this offseason. It's not because they are problem children or anything like that. The Broncos are not alone here and are not "being cheap" for the sake of being cheap. I think the players understand that.

peacepipe
06-15-2010, 01:13 PM
6 years $65m... $15m in bonus money up front. $5m, $6m, 7m, and $8m in 2010-2013 then $12m and $15m in the next two years... which he will likely never see.

Likely will not want to see, the one thing about owners is that they release or cut players before they reach the 4th -6th yr. I wouldn't settle for less then 30-40 million garanteed if I were dumervil.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-15-2010, 01:18 PM
How much does a franchise tag for an OLB run these days?

Taco John
06-15-2010, 01:23 PM
Julius Peppers is making something like a $16m per year average. Of course, he is the top paid player in the league right now.

Taco John
06-15-2010, 01:26 PM
Considering Dwight Freeny signed a $72 million dollar contract with $31.5 million guaranteed (in 2007), Doom's numbers aren't outrageous at all.

I can't believe how out of control these figures have gotten.

cutthemdown
06-15-2010, 01:38 PM
We can always tag him, protect him somehow. He won't just walk.

Kaylore
06-15-2010, 01:40 PM
I know it's been said, but just to reiterate:

The source of this "info" is shady and this contract amount is derivative. Nowhere is either Dumervil or his agent quoted as asking for 40 mil guaranteed and no other news source is reporting this. This isn't true and the article title is poor journalism. Frankly speaking, the thread title should be changed as well.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 01:42 PM
This is simply not true as of today. The new CBA hasn't even been put in draft form yet, so you have no way to know for sure how it will look in final execution form. It could very easily contain tags and provisions never seen or heard of before that could keep players on their original teams longer. Obviously the owners would have to give something up to accomplish this, but it's not impossible.

Well being that owners have 2 major goals for the new CBA, 1 being paying the players less and the other being to eliminate revenue sharing I doubt they are going to go out of their ways to give up things to introduce new tags etc.

The far more likely option is that the league and players union decide to have a two week grace period between signing the CBA and the beginning of the new league year so teams have an opportunity to resign their impending free agents. I think both sides would have an interest in something like that and would not be surprised to see it happen.

I am sure that the owners will not give up money in order to be able to hang on to players for longer and with the fiasco that has been the longer RFA period this year the union is going to be asking a LOT in order to approve any suggestion that would keep players away from UFA status. If anything we may see even fewer tag possibilities and more restrictions the uses of fanchise and transission tags as well as restricted free agent tenders.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 01:43 PM
How much does a franchise tag for an OLB run these days?

I believe it is a tad below 10 mill, although the Ware and Suggs contracts may have put it above 10.

meangene
06-15-2010, 01:46 PM
Sack masters get paid....plain and simple.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dumervil will get 15+ sacks again next year and well into the future.

Dumervil set sack records in high school and in college. He's notched double digit sacks in the 4-3 and in the 3-4 in the NFL.

There are not too many guys walking around that have sacked the QB 17 times in a year....and the ones that have are paid very well for it.

Exactly. If you are going to be a "one trick pony", sacking the QB is a pretty good trick to have. We have no idea where the CBA is going in the next couple of years and we may not have the leverage we have now to make a deal. Elite pass rushers don't come along often and we can not afford to let this one get away.

Kaylore
06-15-2010, 01:46 PM
Well being that owners have 2 major goals for the new CBA, 1 being paying the players less and the other being to eliminate revenue sharing

Please stop saying things that aren't true.

Dagmar
06-15-2010, 01:51 PM
I know it's been said, but just to reiterate:

The source of this "info" is shady and this contract amount is derivative. Nowhere is either Dumervil or his agent quoted as asking for 40 mil guaranteed and no other news source is reporting this. This isn't true and the article title is poor journalism. Frankly speaking, the thread title should be changed as well.

That's why I posted it in the other Doom thread instead of starting a new one.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 01:54 PM
Well being that owners have 2 major goals for the new CBA, 1 being paying the players less and the other being to eliminate revenue sharing

Point #2 is simply not true.

The far more likely option is that the league and players union decide to have a two week grace period between signing the CBA and the beginning of the new league year so teams have an opportunity to resign their impending free agents. I think both sides would have an interest in something like that and would not be surprised to see it happen.

I am sure that the owners will not give up money in order to be able to hang on to players for longer and with the fiasco that has been the longer RFA period this year the union is going to be asking a LOT in order to approve any suggestion that would keep players away from UFA status. If anything we may see even fewer tag possibilities and more restrictions the uses of fanchise and transission tags as well as restricted free agent tenders.

See, here's the problem. This post makes it clear that you are expressing your opinion; whereas earlier in this thread and in the thread you started specifically about the "state of the CBA", you state all this as if it is hard fact and as if you cut and pasted it from some official league document. You didn't. While all of this MAY come true a year from now, there is no way to be sure of it today.

Man-Goblin
06-15-2010, 01:56 PM
The Suggs contract still seems about right.

His deal was 6 years, $63 million, $38 mill in G-money. Through 4 years, Dumervil's sack production is well outpacing Suggs' 53 total sacks through the 6 seasons he played before his extension.

The Broncos do have a little leverage that the Ravens did not. During negotiations, Suggs was guaranteed to make the franchise tag total of about $11 million in the 2009 season. Dumervil's 2010 total is decidedly below that.

My guess is the Suggs deal gets it done, and before the beginning of the season the Broncos will pay it.

Of course, you can always keep him around and hope he has a sub-par year so you can get him cheaper, but that's pretty damn counterproductive, don't ya think?

LittleFloyd
06-15-2010, 02:45 PM
Enjoy the last season of Doom in Denver. Bowlen has become an owner who is cheap. He won't pay. Even tho he said years ago, build me a stadium so we can continue to pay our top players. Remember the fur coat he used to wear? It is now made of bird cloth, cheap-cheap-cheap.

HAT
06-15-2010, 02:53 PM
Enjoy the last season of Doom in Denver. Bowlen has become an owner who is cheap. He won't pay. Even tho he said years ago, build me a stadium so we can continue to pay our top players. Remember the fur coat he used to wear? It is now made of bird cloth, cheap-cheap-cheap.

{Insert orangeandblueblooded's avatar here}

Popps
06-15-2010, 02:56 PM
Sack masters get paid....plain and simple.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dumervil will get 15+ sacks again next year and well into the future.

Dumervil set sack records in high school and in college. He's notched double digit sacks in the 4-3 and in the 3-4 in the NFL.

There are not too many guys walking around that have sacked the QB 17 times in a year....and the ones that have are paid very well for it.

I agree.

I don't think he's technically worth that money, but I think overpaying for him to keep him (in this case) is better than the alternative.

They need to try to bargain the best deal they can, but at the end of the day... he's a commodity that is very hard to come by.

peacepipe
06-15-2010, 03:07 PM
How much does a franchise tag for an OLB run these days?
depends on wether it's a 3-4 OLB or a 4-3 OLB. A 3-4 OLB is the pass rusher in a 3-4 so carries a lot higher pay scale.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 03:09 PM
Please stop saying things that aren't true.

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/02/nfl-revenue-sharing-ruling-will-not-boost-pay/

Clearly the league wants to eliminate revenue sharing.

crush17
06-15-2010, 03:12 PM
You're stating fact from a blog, gylden.

Come on.

Kaylore
06-15-2010, 03:15 PM
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/02/nfl-revenue-sharing-ruling-will-not-boost-pay/

Clearly the league wants to eliminate revenue sharing.

:nono: There's nothing in there that even remotely suggests they don't want to continue revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is why they're all so rich. Is this what you're basing this on? Because there is nothing anywhere else that even suggests this. There is nothing to be gained by discontinuing revenue sharing unless you're the top five franchises, and even then 27 > 5. It wouldn't pass.

Beantown Bronco
06-15-2010, 03:17 PM
depends on wether it's a 3-4 OLB or a 4-3 OLB. A 3-4 OLB is the pass rusher in a 3-4 so carries a lot higher pay scale.

The league doesn't distinguish 4-3 vs 3-4 when it calculates the figures. Further, ALL LBs, whether outside, inside, or middle, carry the same figure. Last year it was $8.3 million.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806a24a3&template=without-video&confirm=true

wolf754life
06-15-2010, 03:17 PM
get off bowlen, champ bailey is cheap? he will spend it when it worth it, when its not he won't

goodbye dumervil, another reggie heyward

Kaylore
06-15-2010, 03:19 PM
You're stating fact from a blog, gylden.

Come on.

It doesn't even say anything about the new CBA. It's one guy pointing out that poor teams can keep the money with no salary floor. It just says the poor teams aren't going to spend their money because all the teams have no salary floor anymore and so are going to keep their allotted amount rather than share it. It has nothing to do with CBA or the opinions of the owners as a whole.

CEH
06-15-2010, 03:22 PM
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/02/nfl-revenue-sharing-ruling-will-not-boost-pay/

Clearly the league wants to eliminate revenue sharing.

The key word here is "supplemental revenue" meaning everything except TV and corporate sponsers. I have heard that there is indeed "in fighting" among owners to eliminate this supplemental revenue sharing and it could very well be a catalyst for a lock out in '11

tsiguy96
06-15-2010, 03:23 PM
The league doesn't distinguish 4-3 vs 3-4 when it calculates the figures. Further, ALL LBs, whether outside, inside, or middle, carry the same figure. Last year it was $8.3 million.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806a24a3&template=without-video&confirm=true

i thought they made a distinction when suggs was being franchised tagged for a hybrid de/lb?

SouthStndJunkie
06-15-2010, 03:24 PM
get off bowlen, champ bailey is cheap? he will spend it when it worth it, when its not he won't

goodbye dumervil, another reggie heyward

Please put down the crack pipe.

Reggie Heyward 8 years/39.5 career sacks = 4.9 a year.

Elvis Dumervil 4 years/43 sacks = 10.75 sacks per year.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Point #2 is simply not true.



See, here's the problem. This post makes it clear that you are expressing your opinion; whereas earlier in this thread and in the thread you started specifically about the "state of the CBA", you state all this as if it is hard fact and as if you cut and pasted it from some official league document. You didn't. While all of this MAY come true a year from now, there is no way to be sure of it today.

See above answer to Kaylore, clearly the league has actively attempted to get rid of revenue sharing, I am not sure how you can see that any other way.

Truths:
1. The CBA will expire at the end of the current league year.
2. A new league year can not begin without a CBA in place.
3. The free agent signing period begins when the league year begins, so no new league year means no free agent signing period.
4. The owners voted to terminate the CBA because they were unhappy with the players taking home 59.5% of league revenue.
5. The owners attempted to eliminate supplemental revenue sharing, but were blocked by the NFLPA taking the case to arbitration and winning.

Things I have infered from these truths:
1. The owners will only sign a CBA that drops the amount of money paid to the players, numbers that have been kicked around talk about anything between 10 and 20% reduction.
2. The owners have no particular interest in keeping players playing for their original team longer than under the old CBA.
3. Players have an interest in becoming unrestricted free agents as soon as possible, and certainly will not accept a CBA that reduces the amount of money spend on player salaries AND limits the abilities of players to become free agents.
4. The owners can only really make 2 major concessions towards active players, one would be limiting the use of franchise tag and other devices preventing players from negotiating a long-term contract and the other would be letting an independent adjudicator determine player suspensions and disciplinary cases. The owners can make a minor concession in agreeing to not expand the regular season or preseason to include more games.
5. The players can make 3 major concessions, reduced salary, rookie wage scale and limiting the ability to become a free agent.
6. A majority of owners would like to eliminate or reduce revenue sharing.

Conclusion: The owners want to reduce player costs, the players want to optimize their earnings. It seems very likely that the players will allow the rookie wage scale because that won't affect any current members of the NFLPA but that is most likely not going to be enough. I don't see any way the owners are going to back down from their demand of reduced player costs which means they will have to give up something to achieve that, and certainly they are not going to accept a smaller salary decrease for the sake of keeping UFA at 5 or 6 years, when the old CBA had it at 4 years.

It all comes down the owners' priorities and the top priority is without a shadow of doubt reducing player costs.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 03:40 PM
:nono: There's nothing in there that even remotely suggests they don't want to continue revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is why they're all so rich. Is this what you're basing this on? Because there is nothing anywhere else that even suggests this. There is nothing to be gained by discontinuing revenue sharing unless you're the top five franchises, and even then 27 > 5. It wouldn't pass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2360296

So they want to discontinue supplemental revenue sharing but you don't take that to mean they want to discontinue revenue sharing?

When they negotiated the last CBA revenue sharing was a hot topic among the owners and it will be this time again, you can count on that.

What happens if 5 teams in the league can only be profitable with player costs below 70 million? then the cap needs to be set below 70 million to keep those teams competitive and financially viable. That benefits every owner, however if Jerry Jones gives money to the lower tier teams they can afford salary costs of 90 million, then the cap can be 90 million and that is 20 million out of every owners pocket. Revenue sharing enables small market teams to have inflated salary costs compared to their profitability.

Revenue sharing does not only cost the rich teams money, it costs everybody money, also the middle tier teams who neither pay nor gain from it.

TDmvp
06-15-2010, 04:09 PM
I love Doom , But dude is worthless vs the run ...

Kaylore
06-15-2010, 04:19 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2360296

So they want to discontinue supplemental revenue sharing but you don't take that to mean they want to discontinue revenue sharing?

When they negotiated the last CBA revenue sharing was a hot topic among the owners and it will be this time again, you can count on that.

What happens if 5 teams in the league can only be profitable with player costs below 70 million? then the cap needs to be set below 70 million to keep those teams competitive and financially viable. That benefits every owner, however if Jerry Jones gives money to the lower tier teams they can afford salary costs of 90 million, then the cap can be 90 million and that is 20 million out of every owners pocket. Revenue sharing enables small market teams to have inflated salary costs compared to their profitability.

Revenue sharing does not only cost the rich teams money, it costs everybody money, also the middle tier teams who neither pay nor gain from it.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing in that article about them wanting to end revenue sharing. That's a story about when the current model, which they now don't like, was signed. Them not liking it has more to do with the cap and nothing to do with sharing revenue. I don't think you're getting what the owner's issues are with the CBA. It was never (and still isn't) revenue sharing.

The salary floor and ceiling are based on a model that would allow all the teams to sign players and be competitive. Your scenario is exactly what's happened: The floor and ceiling are so high that everyone has room to sign their players so there's no movement and all the teams can't afford the new floor. The "rich teams" also lost their revenue they were generating through the box seats and local TV contracts which were, previous to the most recent CBA, money in that team's pocket. The cost of operation for the big teams is bigger than the small and so they offset each other.

Here are the facts, Gylden:


No one anywhere, at any time, from any news source, from either the players association or the owners, has ever said their problem with CBA was revenue sharing in general.
Ending revenue sharing would only help the 5 richest teams because after those five, the difference between 6 and 26 is pretty negligible and majority see the benefit of the model.
Of those five half like the current set up. Most think Snyder and Jones want to end it, but this is only suspected to be the case based on how they act and they have never pushed for this to happen nor have they said anything about wanting it so.
Your hypothetical about cost of operation is precisely why they ended the deal, not to kill revenue sharing but to reduce the cap. Players want RS b/c it means more bidding wars for their services. Further, the league has been dealing with zombie teams (Cardinals, most recently Raiders and now J-Ville) for some time and know it is a necessary consequence of the model, but the benefits out-weigh the costs.
Your assertion that any of the owners want out is completely baseless other than your own suppositions which are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

BroncoInferno
06-15-2010, 04:51 PM
If the Broncos can't reach an agreement with Dumervil by their season opener Sept. 12 at Jacksonville, there's a good chance he will play out this year, then move on to another team through unrestricted free agency.

Well, no. Even if a new CBA is reached and Elvis does not have to re-enter restricted FA, it is pretty much a slam dunk that we would slap the franchise tag on him if no long-term deal was reached.

Taco John
06-15-2010, 05:41 PM
I love Doom , But dude is worthless vs the run ...

So was Derrick Thomas. So was Lawrence Taylor.

2KBack
06-15-2010, 05:53 PM
So was Derrick Thomas. So was Lawrence Taylor.

I have a great deal of trouble believing this to be true. Lawrence Taylor was 1st team all-pro his first like six years in the league, and didn't break 10 sacks until his fourth year. He was more than a pass rusher.

yerner
06-15-2010, 05:59 PM
I love Doom , But dude is worthless vs the run ...

I'm not sure that's totally true. Has Mcdaniels ever alluded to it? Nolan? I think this has been more of an omane assumption not completly backed up by Nfl coaches or media. He has only played this position for a year now and the jury is still out on his run stop abilities.

azbroncfan
06-15-2010, 06:06 PM
So was Derrick Thomas. So was Lawrence Taylor.

This isn't true.

listopencil
06-15-2010, 06:37 PM
Dumervil has played dirt cheap the last 4 years at about $500,000 a year, which is nothing in today's NFL.

He's never b****ed or complained about it once....it's his time to get a big payday.

At 26 years old, this is the biggest contract he will be able to demand. Only a fool would expect him to take less than what he is worth.


Yep.

Taco John
06-15-2010, 06:41 PM
This isn't true.

It's exaggerating on my part to say that about LT. But not about DT.

broncosteven
06-15-2010, 06:42 PM
So was Derrick Thomas. So was Lawrence Taylor.

LT was a monster and complete package.

Thomas seemed to look for sack 1st Run support 2nd and could be deceived but he could wrap up and did not shy from contact.

Taco John
06-15-2010, 06:57 PM
The point that I was trying to make was that they didn't use LT as a run stuffer (nor DT). They used them to get after the quarterback. This is how Doom should be looked.

azbroncfan
06-15-2010, 07:03 PM
The point that I was trying to make was that they didn't use LT as a run stuffer (nor DT). They used them to get after the quarterback. This is how Doom should be looked.

Have you ever looked at their tackle numbers compared to Doom's?

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 07:31 PM
First of all, there is absolutely nothing in that article about them wanting to end revenue sharing. That's a story about when the current model, which they now don't like, was signed. Them not liking it has more to do with the cap and nothing to do with sharing revenue. I don't think you're getting what the owner's issues are with the CBA. It was never (and still isn't) revenue sharing.

The salary floor and ceiling are based on a model that would allow all the teams to sign players and be competitive. Your scenario is exactly what's happened: The floor and ceiling are so high that everyone has room to sign their players so there's no movement and all the teams can't afford the new floor. The "rich teams" also lost their revenue they were generating through the box seats and local TV contracts which were, previous to the most recent CBA, money in that team's pocket. The cost of operation for the big teams is bigger than the small and so they offset each other.

Here are the facts, Gylden:


No one anywhere, at any time, from any news source, from either the players association or the owners, has ever said their problem with CBA was revenue sharing in general.
Ending revenue sharing would only help the 5 richest teams because after those five, the difference between 6 and 26 is pretty negligible and majority see the benefit of the model.
Of those five half like the current set up. Most think Snyder and Jones want to end it, but this is only suspected to be the case based on how they act and they have never pushed for this to happen nor have they said anything about wanting it so.
Your hypothetical about cost of operation is precisely why they ended the deal, not to kill revenue sharing but to reduce the cap. Players want RS b/c it means more bidding wars for their services. Further, the league has been dealing with zombie teams (Cardinals, most recently Raiders and now J-Ville) for some time and know it is a necessary consequence of the model, but the benefits out-weigh the costs.
Your assertion that any of the owners want out is completely baseless other than your own suppositions which are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.


Did you not read that article at all?

That entire article spells out one thing, that revenue sharing is a highly contentious issue and that during the last CBA negotiations more than any other aspect the owners were preoccupied with designing a good model for revenue sharing, which they ultimately failed to do.

Revenue sharing is inherently independent from the salary cap, the salary cap in its existing form was here before the last CBA which revamped revenue sharing, so the two are independent in the sense that one could exist without the other.

The salary cap is designed to ensure that players recieve 59.5% of the revenue and to limit a few high grossing teams from skewing the league competitively. Only two factors influence the salary cap, revenue and salary levels, if teams spend below expected in one the cap (and thus the floor) will go up next year to ensure players get the 59.5% of revenue on average.

*First up, I am not claiming and have never claimed that revenue sharing was the reason for ending the CBA prematurely.

*Ending revenue sharing would help all teams since it would provide the league with a way to force down player salaries across the board, this would mean lower cap, lower floor in order to keep the small market teams floating and profitable, this would make the middle market teams more profitable as well as the big market teams.

*Half like the current setup? They like it so much they took a case to arbitration to get rid of a significant part of the current setup, and that was not the big 5 or half, that was unamimous.

*Revenue sharing was the major point of contention between the owners 4 years ago, and even then Cincinnati and Buffalo voted against it, the owners UNANIMOUSLY wanted to end part of revenue sharing before the end of the current CBA. Those are both facts which proves that not all teams are happy with revenue sharing and that many owners (more than 50%) want to minimize revenue sharing.

broncosteven
06-15-2010, 08:14 PM
Did you not read that article at all?

That entire article spells out one thing, that revenue sharing is a highly contentious issue and that during the last CBA negotiations more than any other aspect the owners were preoccupied with designing a good model for revenue sharing, which they ultimately failed to do.

Revenue sharing is inherently independent from the salary cap, the salary cap in its existing form was here before the last CBA which revamped revenue sharing, so the two are independent in the sense that one could exist without the other.

The salary cap is designed to ensure that players recieve 59.5% of the revenue and to limit a few high grossing teams from skewing the league competitively. Only two factors influence the salary cap, revenue and salary levels, if teams spend below expected in one the cap (and thus the floor) will go up next year to ensure players get the 59.5% of revenue on average.

*First up, I am not claiming and have never claimed that revenue sharing was the reason for ending the CBA prematurely.

*Ending revenue sharing would help all teams since it would provide the league with a way to force down player salaries across the board, this would mean lower cap, lower floor in order to keep the small market teams floating and profitable, this would make the middle market teams more profitable as well as the big market teams.

*Half like the current setup? They like it so much they took a case to arbitration to get rid of a significant part of the current setup, and that was not the big 5 or half, that was unamimous.

*Revenue sharing was the major point of contention between the owners 4 years ago, and even then Cincinnati and Buffalo voted against it, the owners UNANIMOUSLY wanted to end part of revenue sharing before the end of the current CBA. Those are both facts which proves that not all teams are happy with revenue sharing and that many owners (more than 50%) want to minimize revenue sharing.

Can you explain revenue sharing in more depth please? If I buy a hot dog at Invesco do those loser Mulletheads in Analhead or the Prisoners in the Blackhole get some of my money cause if so I am not buying a hot dog at Invesco ever again!

****ing AFC west gets a piece of my hot dog action? WTMF!

Taco John
06-15-2010, 09:35 PM
Have you ever looked at their tackle numbers compared to Doom's?

Apparently you have. What are they?

The NFL has not recognized the 'tackle' as an official statistic (they only started to as recently as 2001), and thus there is no official data recorded on either LT or DT. What are the numbers that you have?

Cito Pelon
06-16-2010, 01:28 AM
Med made a good argument that Indy struggled in the playoffs because Freeney and Mathis went down.


The reasons I would pull the trigger is that he is young, injury free so far, next to Bailey he is the only other Pro-Bowler on the team, I would like to see the history of letting homegrown DL talent leaving and flourishing elsewhere stop.

From what I read Wink's system of pressuring via Blitzing will be perfect for Doom and really would be worthless with out a legit passrusher like Doom to execute.

Sure he is not perfect on run downs but he has the arms to get low and wrapup in run game as well as get to the passer.

Signing Doom is a no brainer, if they don't want to lock him up that high then trade him now.

Actually, in 2009 he made the important All-Pro lists, not the Pro Bowl, which is too much fan-driven to be objective:

2009 Associated Press: 1st Team All-NFL
Pro Football Writers: 1st Team All-NFL
Sporting News: 1st Team All-NFL

It's not a bad starting point for negotiations, if true. Heck, if he's willing to settle for $35 guaranteed that's a good deal for the Broncos at this time. Let's see how creative Elvis & the Broncs will get. There's a lot of ways to structure a contract.

Popps
06-16-2010, 01:41 AM
So was Derrick Thomas. So was Lawrence Taylor.

[x] for the lulz

(Has to be.)

Popps
06-16-2010, 01:43 AM
The Giants overcame a slow start in Super Bowl XXI to cruise past the Denver Broncos 39–20.[40] Taylor made a key stop on a goal line play in the first half, tackling John Elway as he sprinted out on a rollout, a play which prevented a touchdown.


With the Super Bowl win, Taylor had just capped off an unprecedented start to his career. Six years into his career Taylor had won the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year Award (1981), the NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award a record three times (1981, 1982, 1986), been named to First-team All-Pro nine times (1981–89),[20] became the first defensive player in NFL history to be unanimously voted the league's MVP (1986), and led his team to a championship (1986).

Popps
06-16-2010, 01:46 AM
By the time Taylor retired, he had amassed 1,088 tackles, 132.5 sacks (not counting the 9.5 sacks he recorded as a rookie because sacks did not become an official statistic until 1982), 9 interceptions, 134 return yards, 2 touchdowns, 33 forced fumbles, 11 fumble recoveries, and 34 fumble return yards.


Again, I'm assuming Taco's running a level, here.

Can't possibly be serious.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d81117d85/Top-Ten-Most-Feared-Tacklers-Lawrence-Taylor

elsid13
06-16-2010, 03:35 AM
There are three positions that paid a premium in the NFL:
1. Quarterback - the guy that touches the ball most during the game
2. Left Tackle - the guy that protects the QB
3. Pass Rusher (DE/OLD) - the guy that beats the LT to get to the QB.

Doom is clearly a top notch pass rusher and will get paid as such.

Kaylore
06-16-2010, 09:04 AM
Did you not read that article at all?

That entire article spells out one thing, that revenue sharing is a highly contentious issue and that during the last CBA negotiations more than any other aspect the owners were preoccupied with designing a good model for revenue sharing, which they ultimately failed to do.
You're speaking in generalities and I don't think you "get" the CBA or revenue sharing at all. The cap and money set aside for the players isn't the same thing as revenue sharing between clubs.


*First up, I am not claiming and have never claimed that revenue sharing was the reason for ending the CBA prematurely.

You're asserting that the owners want to end it with no evidence saying that is the case other than it makes sense to you. You can't just say "well I would want to end it" and then go around telling everyone the owners do to. That's completely crazy.

Gylden, if the owners were upset about revenue sharing everyone would know about it. It would be the biggest story in the NFL. Their list of gripes with the expired CBA has been listed several times and revenue sharing between clubs has never been listed.

Frankly, I'm tired of arguing with you because you post random articles saying it proves you're right without quoting what part you're talking about then say things like "well they're mad about the situation, so that proves they hate it!" As though some discontent over the CBA generally is evidence they hate it. It's not. And you posting three paragraphs about why YOU think it should end does not count as evidence they feel the same way.

I don't want to debate the merits and flaws of revenue sharing, I just want to stop the recent trend of people reporting suppositions on this cite as fact. Stop telling people the owners want to end revenue sharing. They don't and until you have some proof that at least one of them does (proof would consist a quote or a source in an accredited paper, no what you think makes sense in your head) stop saying it. It isn't true.

Taco John
06-16-2010, 09:53 AM
By the time Taylor retired, he had amassed 1,088 tackles, 132.5 sacks (not counting the 9.5 sacks he recorded as a rookie because sacks did not become an official statistic until 1982), 9 interceptions, 134 return yards, 2 touchdowns, 33 forced fumbles, 11 fumble recoveries, and 34 fumble return yards.


Again, I'm assuming Taco's running a level, here.

Can't possibly be serious.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d81117d85/Top-Ten-Most-Feared-Tacklers-Lawrence-Taylor



I already said that I was exaggerating when I mentioned LT. What I was referring to was how he was used. He wasn't used as "an all around" LB'er. He was used to put the fear of God into quarterbacks. His job was to get to the quarterback, not stuff the line.

When people say that Doom isn't an "all around LB," that doesn't really matter. He's a AAA grade pass rusher who has roughly as many QB sacks as LT had in his first four years. Like LT and like DT, Doom isn't going to be used as a run stuffer. His job is to get to the QB.

Hulamau
06-16-2010, 10:11 AM
The problem with Doom is that he's still developing his skill-set at LB.

At 65M, you want a complete, dominant player.

He's certainly a top-flight pass-rusher. But, imagine if you broke down his salary into categories and paid him x-amount for pass rushing, x-amount for run defense, etc.
I just have a feeling that most estimates would have him coming up short of being worth top 5 money. He's not a dominant, complete player yet. He's a dominant pass-rushing specialist.

That said... I think we need to do whatever we need to do to keep him. Sign a long-term deal. In 4 years, this won't seem like that much money. I don't think he's the type of talent you can build a defense around, but he's the only threat we've got out there. We certainly can't let him walk.

I was just starting to type a similar thought when I saw your post Popps. The money is high and Doom, for all his great attitude and outstanding pass rush which we definitely need, has yet to show he's a dominant run stopper and solid in pass coverage as a three down OLB.

In any event, if this is what he is asking, I can see why the process is dragging out some. Not to mention the CBA issues next year.
Perhaps Dooms argument is he is asking what other elite dedicated pass rushers are getting so we need to just look at his other OLB contributions that increase as he learns as an added value deal? :-)