Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Offseason superlatives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
    Can you cap Specialists break down Talib contract and cap hits if cut year by year?
    This is the best info you'll find, linked below. Note the fine print towards the bottom that only $11.5 million is initially guaranteed, with the rest of the guarantee kicking in on the first day of the 2015-16 league year.

    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/denver-broncos/aqib-talib/

    More here: http://overthecap.com/cap.php?Name=Aqib Talib&Position=CB&Team=Broncos
    CB Aqib Talib signed a six year, $57 million contract with the Denver Broncos on March 12, 2014. Talib received $11.5 million in fully guaranteed salary. The full guarantee is made up of a $5 million signing bonus, $2 million 2014 roster bonus, and $4.5 million 2014 base salary. His 2015 and 2016 base salaries are both guaranteed for injury only and will become fully guaranteed if he is on the roster on the 3rd day of that respective league year. He has $500,000 roster bonuses paid for games active in the first three years of the contract. Base salaries are $4,500,000(2014), $5,500,000(2015), $8,500,000(2016), $11,000,000(2017), $11,000,000(2018), and $8,000,000(2019).

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by baja View Post
      No you idiot I applaud him.

      Are you typing in English?
      Lets get this straight, we're calling names now......how MATURE of you. Why dont you stick to the topic and stop acting like a maniac.
      Last edited by NorCalBronco7; 05-16-2014, 01:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
        We're gonna have to agree to disagree. There ARENT big time implications down the road. That's my whole point, he's not mortgaging the future in favor of the present. He's sticking to his win NOW ON philiosophy. I don't know why signing big FAs and being responsible are mutually exclusive concepts to you. I'm done with this stupid argument
        Fine, its set. Agree to disagree. But youre missing the big pay off of this entire conversation. Theres more variance to consider instead of just simply saying the Broncos arent "all in". Too bad you cant see that.
        Last edited by NorCalBronco7; 05-16-2014, 01:19 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by NorthernistCaliforneeway7 View Post
          Fine, its set. Agree to disagree. But youre missing the big pay off of this entire conversation. Theres more variance to consider instead of just simply saying the Broncos arent "all in". Too bad you cant see that.
          I think its safe to say our definitions of "all in" are completely different. I'm not saying the broncos arent trying their hardest. I'm saying they are doing so AND being responsible at the same time. They are being smart. Their vision is correct. They aren't going all riverboat gambler on the future.

          Continue the demeaning bull**** though, by all means. It's easy to gain the respect of others when you're a complete ****head.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
            Anyone else find the "all in" poker comparison tiresome? All in implies some kind of huge risk, which the Broncos havent done. They improved the team and have a squad good enough to compete. Why this is "all in" is beyond me.
            It is a really stupid and incorrect analogy.

            As is all the other idiotic poker terms being used in this thread.

            "sit and go"
            "flop"
            "short stack"

            NC7 is trying way to hard to make a poor analogy work.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by delany View Post
              It is a really stupid and incorrect analogy.

              As is all the other idiotic poker terms being used in this thread.

              "sit and go"
              "flop"
              "short stack"

              NC7 is trying way to hard to make a poor analogy work.

              Comment


              • #52
                This was the strangest argument ever.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by baja View Post
                  They did not have to cut him they could have accepted his existing contract. If a team is all in they overpay for a key player under contract. Cutting Doom was the right move but it was not the "all in" move.
                  I agree it wasn't an 'all in' move. Cutting Doom was the only option that made sense.

                  I look at most of the moves Elway has been making as a balanced approach. He wants to take advantage of PFM's time in Denver, but clearly has an eye on the future and is building the team accordingly.

                  I hope he sticks around and ends up with ownership..

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rugbythug View Post
                    This was the strangest argument ever.


                    I just couldnt resist. It was too easy.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by crush17 View Post
                      Excellent.
                      At least one guy got it....

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DenverBrit View Post
                        I agree it wasn't an 'all in' move. Cutting Doom was the only option that made sense.

                        I look at most of the moves Elway has been making as a balanced approach. He wants to take advantage of PFM's time in Denver, but clearly has an eye on the future and is building the team accordingly.

                        I hope he sticks around and ends up with ownership..
                        Yes Everyone on this thread is in agreement with this except northern cal guy. and I have no idea what the hell point he is attempting to make. There is not one shrewd of evidence Elway is mortgaging the future and tons of evidence to the contrary.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by baja View Post
                          Yes Everyone on this thread is in agreement with this except northern cal guy. and I have no idea what the hell point he is attempting to make. There is not one shrewd of evidence Elway is mortgaging the future and tons of evidence to the contrary.
                          The point was to exhaust every poker term I could. Mission accomplished.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I don't really care if people use poker terms to describe the Broncos. Except NC7. There's no question we're going all in before Peyton's done. But I see them also doing a decent job for the future.

                            Note: only 82 days till Broncos play their first preseason game and the off season is technically over. Andele!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Elway has Anted up being short staked. His next move will be to go all in for a Superbowl run. Lets hope he doesn't take a bad beat on the flop in the Superbowl this time.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X