Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 82
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2,210
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    Oh please!! Running this team to the ground?? Maybe he knows the cap is going to plummet the next couple of years and he's making the best choice for the better of the team. You ever think of that? Yes, we have cap space now to sign Simmons but it is widely speculated that the cap will fall. Paying him now means other up and coming players are going to have to be let go.

    Elway has done an exceptional job drafting these last couple years. NO GM WILL HIT 100% and demanding John does is ridiculous. Last draft and our current one I will put up against any team and we win. He has done better than any GM drafting the last couple of years, imo
    I agree with this message !

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,794
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    Oh please!! Running this team to the ground?? Maybe he knows the cap is going to plummet the next couple of years and he's making the best choice for the better of the team. You ever think of that? Yes, we have cap space now to sign Simmons but it is widely speculated that the cap will fall. Paying him now means other up and coming players are going to have to be let go.

    Elway has done an exceptional job drafting these last couple years. NO GM WILL HIT 100% and demanding John does is ridiculous. Last draft and our current one I will put up against any team and we win. He has done better than any GM drafting the last couple of years, imo
    I will admit Elway has done well in the last year or two. That said only two guys right now are really worth a serious look for a second contract. Simmons and Sutton.

    Looking ahead i do not see the cap declining. So many fans are going gaga over the cap. The majority of revenue is not stadiums tickets. It is the other deals. If current plans roll forward we can potentially see 1/3 capacity seating so even then we will not see a total loss of in stadium revenue. We then have a 17th game and extra playoff team(game) next season. So I'd imagine we will see dips in revenues this season. Then an increase in next seasons revenue above and beyond. Netting out a neutral cap hit (or should be) for 2020 and 2021.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,628
    All local reporting says this is amicable and Simmons has said he doesn't mind playing with the franchise tag. He loves Denver and really wants to be a Bronco. And he is great for the community. Plus Fangio is Simmons' number one fan. Simmons will be a Bronco, there was just no urgency to get a deal done in this circumstance as both sides are content with the franchise tag.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    I will admit Elway has done well in the last year or two. That said only two guys right now are really worth a serious look for a second contract. Simmons and Sutton.

    Looking ahead i do not see the cap declining. So many fans are going gaga over the cap. The majority of revenue is not stadiums tickets. It is the other deals. If current plans roll forward we can potentially see 1/3 capacity seating so even then we will not see a total loss of in stadium revenue. We then have a 17th game and extra playoff team(game) next season. So I'd imagine we will see dips in revenues this season. Then an increase in next seasons revenue above and beyond. Netting out a neutral cap hit (or should be) for 2020 and 2021.
    NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) Tweeted:
    Something to monitor: The salary cap in 2021 could potentially take a massive hit due to COVID-19. "The various estimates I've gotten from executives to owners is that the cap could be down anywhere $30M to $80M in 2021" — @AdamSchefter

    Full episode 👉 https://t.co/yWz44h3j8C https://t.co/FPI0fq9Prn https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/s...781167105?s=20

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,794
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) Tweeted:
    Something to monitor: The salary cap in 2021 could potentially take a massive hit due to COVID-19. "The various estimates I've gotten from executives to owners is that the cap could be down anywhere $30M to $80M in 2021" — @AdamSchefter

    Full episode 👉 https://t.co/yWz44h3j8C https://t.co/FPI0fq9Prn https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/s...781167105?s=20
    This article was from before Cam signed with the patriots. For me I will need far more concrete numbers which are based on current landscape and appetite for risk.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    This article was from before Cam signed with the patriots. For me I will need far more concrete numbers which are based on current landscape and appetite for risk.
    What does Cam have to do with anything? It's about covid and fans attending games. Owners are going to lose massive amounts of money by fans not being there......hence the drop in salary cap. It's not just TV and advertising, fans in stadiums are a HUGE part of the money pit that is the NFL

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    31,812
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) Tweeted:
    Something to monitor: The salary cap in 2021 could potentially take a massive hit due to COVID-19. "The various estimates I've gotten from executives to owners is that the cap could be down anywhere $30M to $80M in 2021" — @AdamSchefter

    Full episode �� https://t.co/yWz44h3j8C https://t.co/FPI0fq9Prn https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/s...781167105?s=20
    Next year's cap will be higher, lower or the same. Maybe you or someone else can refresh my memory, but I recall hearing that the cap is based on more than TV revenue; something about NFLPA wanting NFL to open the books. If the season goes as planned, the TV revenue should be as good as before. COVID could derail the season a lot or a little depending on outbreaks within/between teams. That is the wild card which makes cap predictions guesswork. Much can happen and we'll find out by January or so.
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Next year's cap will be higher, lower or the same. Maybe you or someone else can refresh my memory, but I recall hearing that the cap is based on more than TV revenue; something about NFLPA wanting NFL to open the books. If the season goes as planned, the TV revenue should be as good as before. COVID could derail the season a lot or a little depending on outbreaks within/between teams. That is the wild card which makes cap predictions guesswork. Much can happen and we'll find out by January or so.
    I'm not a cap expert by any means, but I thought that everything the owners/teams made was a circle of TV contracts, fans/stadium income, advertising and merchandise sales. In my understanding the cap is adjusted every year based on the total predicted income. If the prediction is viewed as going to be a certain percentage lower or higher than previous years the cap adjusts accordingly

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,794
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    What does Cam have to do with anything? It's about covid and fans attending games. Owners are going to lose massive amounts of money by fans not being there......hence the drop in salary cap. It's not just TV and advertising, fans in stadiums are a HUGE part of the money pit that is the NFL
    I was simply using Cam as a guideline as to timing. There will be major factors which will impact the cap. It is my understanding that fans in stadiums are but a small portion of the cap itself. There will be the inevitable negative impact of fewer or no fans in the stadium as well as the big question mark about how COVID will impact the teams and the league during the season. As a counter to that it is expected that a functional and safe vaccine will likely be available by at or near the SB. Add onto that there will be a full 17 game season and another playoff game played next season. In addition to that eyes on TV sets will be higher for games likely both this year and next year. It is just a fact. I am hearing rugby ratings are higher now than ever. People want sports.

    As a result of the demand i believe a new TV
    deal struck mid season would be smart business by the NFL. It would make the most sense so long as games are played.

    There are pros and cons of what is likely to be and the true impact on the cap is one big question mark. Personally I think we are going to land neutral but that is JMO. That said to be speaking in any form of absolutes is just irresponsible and inaccurate.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    I was simply using Cam as a guideline as to timing. There will be major factors which will impact the cap. It is my understanding that fans in stadiums are but a small portion of the cap itself. There will be the inevitable negative impact of fewer or no fans in the stadium as well as the big question mark about how COVID will impact the teams and the league during the season. As a counter to that it is expected that a functional and safe vaccine will likely be available by at or near the SB. Add onto that there will be a full 17 game season and another playoff game played next season. In addition to that eyes on TV sets will be higher for games likely both this year and next year. It is just a fact. I am hearing rugby ratings are higher now than ever. People want sports.

    As a result of the demand i believe a new TV
    deal struck mid season would be smart business by the NFL. It would make the most sense so long as games are played.

    There are pros and cons of what is likely to be and the true impact on the cap is one big question mark. Personally I think we are going to land neutral but that is JMO. That said to be speaking in any form of absolutes is just irresponsible and inaccurate.
    Agreed, anything right now is pure speculation but when a prominent guy like Schefty reports something it tends to have some weight behind it

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Pittsburg, KS :(
    Posts
    3,505
    According to Forbes if there are no spectators at games ...
    The NFL would lose $5.5 billion of stadium revenue (the sum of tickets, concessions, sponsors, parking and team stores)—or 38% of its total revenue—based on figures for the 2018 season (ranking below). But the impact on the individual teams would vary greatly. For example, the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots would lose over half their total revenue while the Buffalo Bills, the Tennessee Titans and the Cincinnati Bengals would lose less than one-third.

    I think ~30% revenue loss although a "small portion" is still a significant portion too and 30% is the minimum to teams without spectators. Dallas and New England have a much higher %. Reality is that it is likely(?) that some spectators will be allowed but even a 20% loss of revenue will impact the salary cap.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    I don't understand how you can't get that grading out higher each year is the possibility of improvement, and doesn't necessarily mean "one year wonder". Normally, people save that moniker for down the road, looking back at a player who only played outstanding ball for one year. They don't usually attach it to someone immediately after having a great year. Especially when that someone is just 4 years into their career. If he had been around average for 7 years and had a breakout year, yeah, on year wonder fits. But having an outstanding year the last year of your first contract, seems silly to label it anything other than improvement. Because the inescapable trough is, even if it technically fits YOUR definition of "one year wonder," it absolutely fits the definition of improvement.
    Of course, it is an improvement, I didn't say it wasn't, I would be an idiot to say that, I agree. It was clear to anyone watching that Simmons was a much-improved player, and for anyone who puts merit into those Pro Football Focus grading like yourself, you would say it was a massive improvement. You would also say based on the Pro Football Focus gradings that last year was an outlier year, something which is obvious to those who closely watch the team as well, that is clear.

    I do disagree with you that one-year wonder labels are usually attached to players down the road, that is not true at all. Where do you usually hear one-year wonder tags attached to players and talked about? When they are entering the draft right? You rarely hear it with current NFL players, outside of maybe the free-agent guy here or there who is due for big money based off one season, like Simmons. That timeline you use as an example of "just 4 years" is also usually the exact timeline after which a college player is entering the draft, and the discussion of one year wonder is brought up.

    The conversation of being a one year wonder for draft-eligible players becomes relevant also because it is at that moment of time you are making a long-term decision on their future, which will affect your football team. So the discussion needs to happen, just like at this point for us with Simmons, it needs to happen because we are looking at his 4-year career and trying to forecast who he will be, and based on all the data, there are questions there regarding consistency. Simmons said himself "if the Broncos wanted a deal done they would have", there is doubt there and for good reason. That is why you discuss players being one-year wonders while they are playing, because you are trying to forecast and project who they will be long-term, based on what they are showing now, it is relevant.

    Calling someone a one year wonder after 4 years in the league seems unnecessarily negative. It has nothing to do with orange colored glasses (which cracks me up, because half the board thinks I'm too negative, and you think I'm too orange colored).
    I am not applying it to all your opinions as some broad statement like you incorrectly done to me earlier in the thread. I am saying on this issue, choosing to look strictly at the Pro Football Focus grades which you value, and only seeing that outlier as improvement and not a what it is, one great year, an outlier year, a year in which he performed significantly better than in the past, it comes across as very fanatical. I also said I wouldn't call someone elite based on one great year, which I believe isn't negative, it's reasonable, and if anything the opposite of an overreaction. Calling for making someone the highest-paid safety ever based on that one year of drastic "improvement", that is an emotional reaction that screams fanatical opinion.

    All of this is well and good; Elway won't pay him, you don't think he's elite, maybe we tag him again, but the bottom line is if he's not our starting safety, whoever is, won't be as good. How does that not make sense? Is our defense better with Smith, Marshall, Locke, Holder or Coleman playing instead of Simmons?

    And you can write this down right now.....if Simmons repeats or improves upon 2019 in 2020, we are going to be paying significantly more than 14 or 15 million a year, or we'll be trotting out someone else to start in 2021.
    Again, people don't understand what they are debating. I never said we would be better off replacing Simmons, that the backups could do just as good as Simmons, that Simmons won't repeat what he did, none of the above, don't assume things and read, please. I said in this thread that I believe Simmons will have another great year, I loved Simmons as a prospect when he was drafted, that I felt he finally put the physical tools together in Fangio's defense, all of the above. My argument was strictly on the contract situation where I didn't believe you make Simmons the highest-paid safety in the league based off of one year, that is it, and the Broncos agreed.

    I am honestly getting a little sick and tired of the modern-day athlete expecting to be handed everything straight away, and fans endorsing it. The Broncos obviously are happy paying Simmons around 12 million dollars per year on the franchise tag, but Simmons wants more. What is wrong with having to prove it again? This is a long-term investment and if Simmons is a free agent last year, he is probably making half of the franchise tag sum for the next 3 years. I know if I was in that situation I would want to secure the long-term contract for as much as possible as soon as possible to, but as a fan, I don't understand not supporting the Broncos angle of saying if you do it again, we are more than happy to pay you more, and give you what you are looking for, but we need to see it again, that is fair.

    I did honestly believe the Broncos would just pony up and overpay Simmons to the tune of 15 million, but I am glad they didn't. I think even in a situation were Simmons does perform again at the level he did, if he actually wanted significantly more than 15 million per year, I would be happy to just let him walk, or tag him and trade him. Do you genuinely think what Simmons did last year, in a salary cap sport, was worthy of paying him 20 million dollars per year? Would you call that a good deal? I don't even think if he does perform again, I would not be entertaining going anywhere near that for what Simmons gave us. He is a very good player, but I don't think he is a 20 million dollar a year type player, and I doubt any team in the league is offering that up. I also don't think for a guy who is commanding 15 million per year clearly based on the contract breakdown that happened with Simmons and the Broncos, that a team would be willing to even trade a 2nd round pick for him. I think Simmons is getting bad advice and might end up getting burned for it. Simmons at 12 million per year would have been a fair deal for all involved, but we will see.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way far away.
    Posts
    1,254
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    Of course, it is an improvement, I didn't say it wasn't, I would be an idiot to say that, I agree. It was clear to anyone watching that Simmons was a much-improved player, and for anyone who puts merit into those Pro Football Focus grading like yourself, you would say it was a massive improvement. You would also say based on the Pro Football Focus gradings that last year was an outlier year, something which is obvious to those who closely watch the team as well, that is clear.

    I do disagree with you that one-year wonder labels are usually attached to players down the road, that is not true at all. Where do you usually hear one-year wonder tags attached to players and talked about? When they are entering the draft right? You rarely hear it with current NFL players, outside of maybe the free-agent guy here or there who is due for big money based off one season, like Simmons. That timeline you use as an example of "just 4 years" is also usually the exact timeline after which a college player is entering the draft, and the discussion of one year wonder is brought up.

    The conversation of being a one year wonder for draft-eligible players becomes relevant also because it is at that moment of time you are making a long-term decision on their future, which will affect your football team. So the discussion needs to happen, just like at this point for us with Simmons, it needs to happen because we are looking at his 4-year career and trying to forecast who he will be, and based on all the data, there are questions there regarding consistency. Simmons said himself "if the Broncos wanted a deal done they would have", there is doubt there and for good reason. That is why you discuss players being one-year wonders while they are playing, because you are trying to forecast and project who they will be long-term, based on what they are showing now, it is relevant.



    I am not applying it to all your opinions as some broad statement like you incorrectly done to me earlier in the thread. I am saying on this issue, choosing to look strictly at the Pro Football Focus grades which you value, and only seeing that outlier as improvement and not a what it is, one great year, an outlier year, a year in which he performed significantly better than in the past, it comes across as very fanatical. I also said I wouldn't call someone elite based on one great year, which I believe isn't negative, it's reasonable, and if anything the opposite of an overreaction. Calling for making someone the highest-paid safety ever based on that one year of drastic "improvement", that is an emotional reaction that screams fanatical opinion.



    Again, people don't understand what they are debating. I never said we would be better off replacing Simmons, that the backups could do just as good as Simmons, that Simmons won't repeat what he did, none of the above, don't assume things and read, please. I said in this thread that I believe Simmons will have another great year, I loved Simmons as a prospect when he was drafted, that I felt he finally put the physical tools together in Fangio's defense, all of the above. My argument was strictly on the contract situation where I didn't believe you make Simmons the highest-paid safety in the league based off of one year, that is it, and the Broncos agreed.

    I am honestly getting a little sick and tired of the modern-day athlete expecting to be handed everything straight away, and fans endorsing it. The Broncos obviously are happy paying Simmons around 12 million dollars per year on the franchise tag, but Simmons wants more. What is wrong with having to prove it again? This is a long-term investment and if Simmons is a free agent last year, he is probably making half of the franchise tag sum for the next 3 years. I know if I was in that situation I would want to secure the long-term contract for as much as possible as soon as possible to, but as a fan, I don't understand not supporting the Broncos angle of saying if you do it again, we are more than happy to pay you more, and give you what you are looking for, but we need to see it again, that is fair.

    I did honestly believe the Broncos would just pony up and overpay Simmons to the tune of 15 million, but I am glad they didn't. I think even in a situation were Simmons does perform again at the level he did, if he actually wanted significantly more than 15 million per year, I would be happy to just let him walk, or tag him and trade him. Do you genuinely think what Simmons did last year, in a salary cap sport, was worthy of paying him 20 million dollars per year? Would you call that a good deal? I don't even think if he does perform again, I would not be entertaining going anywhere near that for what Simmons gave us. He is a very good player, but I don't think he is a 20 million dollar a year type player, and I doubt any team in the league is offering that up. I also don't think for a guy who is commanding 15 million per year clearly based on the contract breakdown that happened with Simmons and the Broncos, that a team would be willing to even trade a 2nd round pick for him. I think Simmons is getting bad advice and might end up getting burned for it. Simmons at 12 million per year would have been a fair deal for all involved, but we will see.




    This last paragraph is where you seem to disconnect from what seems reasonable. You're saying "if he does as good or better next year, and the market has jumped again, we'll just tag him and trade him," when the idea SHOULD be to keep the really good players. They could have paid him 15 a year for the next 4 or 5 years, watched that very quickly become the 6th or 7th highest at that position, and been happy to have him. It's very very simple; both sides made a bet Wednesday. Simmons is betting he'll be as good or better. Elway is betting he won't be. Because if Elway believes the 2019 Justin Simmons is at least what we will get going forward, he was crazy to not lock that down for 15/year. And you're crazy if you think another team won't overpay for talent. EVERY SINGLE YEAR we see it, eventually at every position. Plenty of people thought Chicago was crazy for the contract they gave Jackson in 2018. I promise you, if he balls out again, Simmons will get more than 15/year somewhere, even if he has to play out another tag at 14 million.
    All it takes to win is doing whatever it takes to win: COMMITMENT

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    This last paragraph is where you seem to disconnect from what seems reasonable. You're saying "if he does as good or better next year, and the market has jumped again, we'll just tag him and trade him," when the idea SHOULD be to keep the really good players. They could have paid him 15 a year for the next 4 or 5 years, watched that very quickly become the 6th or 7th highest at that position, and been happy to have him. It's very very simple; both sides made a bet Wednesday. Simmons is betting he'll be as good or better. Elway is betting he won't be. Because if Elway believes the 2019 Justin Simmons is at least what we will get going forward, he was crazy to not lock that down for 15/year. And you're crazy if you think another team won't overpay for talent. EVERY SINGLE YEAR we see it, eventually at every position. Plenty of people thought Chicago was crazy for the contract they gave Jackson in 2018. I promise you, if he balls out again, Simmons will get more than 15/year somewhere, even if he has to play out another tag at 14 million.
    The only players worth keeping according to some posters on this board are those that actively outperform their rookie contracts. When it is time for an elite, home-grown talent to be paid what they are worth-- they are suddenly seen as disposable on here. CHJ took a hometown discount and still ended up getting demonized in the end for holding out for a slight raise. For the last five years, there have been numerous threads and posts about trading one of our all-time franchise greats, Von Miller. If and when Justin Simmons signs a fair extension with Denver for $15M/year, a number that will undoubtedly be a bargain in 3-4 years, he will get the same treatment as Von on this board, sadly. Simmons is a legitimate star and arguably the best free safety in the league right now. He may not rack up 8-10 interceptions a year, but his snap-to-snap impact is vital to the success of our defense. I mean, he is an All-Pro for a reason. I get it, the salary cap for the next couple of seasons is unclear, especially with COVID-19 and the new CBA going into effect. But that didn't stop KC from securing Patrick Mahomes and Chris Jones to long-term deals. Will it bite them in the butt later? Maybe. It's just not realistic to expect not to pay our top players what they are worth. Low-balling our stars when it comes time for their second contract does not set a good precedent for our franchise. It makes me wonder what will happen when it comes time to extend our 2018 gems, Bradley Chubb and Courtland Sutton. Of course Denver should not acquiesce to every pending free agent on the team, nor should they wildly over-pay them-- but as you said, $14-15M is hardly unreasonable for a top safety in the NFL today. The fact that they tried to negotiate a 2014 CHJ-type extension where they make Simmons only the 5th or 6th highest-paid player at his position (~$12M) is almost insulting. I am glad Simmons did not take that offer.
    2020 Adopt-A-Bronco: #10 JERRY JEUDY
    Previous Adoptees: #25 CHRIS HARRIS, #38 QUINTON CARTER, #43 TJ WARD

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,884
    Budda Baker just signed a huge deal in AZ, he just set the bench mark for Simmons deal....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •