NFLPA claims Denver acted illegally

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
10,633
Reaction score
6,786
Location
SoCal Desert
It will entertaining if the Broncos have to pay a soon to be somehow injured Wilson. The Sean and Russell show must go on for some 12s on dot net.
 

Scout

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
1,740
While it is a confusing situation the way I understand it is that the Broncos wanted to have it both ways regarding the contract and I do not think that is going to work out in their favor.
 

renofox

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
3,535
Location
Arizona
I hope the NFL takes a couple 1st round picks from the Broncos.

Icing on the feces-cake of the worst trade ever by an NFL franchise.

To hell with setting them back 3 years - let's make it 5-7 years of utter devastation. FTB.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
10,633
Reaction score
6,786
Location
SoCal Desert
So Broncos wanted to bench him in early November, but to bench him on financial grounds would be illegal, bench him under coaching decisions could be legal. Things did not go ownership/coaches' way in Nov and a good part of December when the team had that 5 games winning streak, how inconvenient. Finally, the team suffered a two game losing streak, lol, in came the coaching decisions.

The ownership, front office, and head coach was secretly wishing the team didn't win in Nov, as winning prevented them from benching Wilson. Allowing Wilson to play was a risk, that injury/financial risk.

Some Hollywood type should start scripting a movie for these two month in Denver, where head coach, front office and ownership wanting the team not to win while the players were enjoying a 5 game winning streak.
 

bmorepunk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
2,990
Reaction score
201
The Broncos want out of the contract extension with minimal losses that hasn't even kicked in yet (it starts next season). Between this and Watson I'm guessing teams are going to come back a bit from the "trade everything and pay everything for a QB" moves.
 

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,219
Reaction score
616
Did the Refs have anything to do with the receivers being unable to catch the ball or interfering with the running back being able to run the ball toward the wrong end zone. LOL
 

Torc

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
1,248
Keep in mind it is Russ' assertion that they benched him for contract reasons. Peyton says he was benched to try to kickstart the offense.

“Rather than get into the specifics — because I think that would be unfair today — it’s more about what we weren’t doing effectively enough offensively,” Payton said. “When we were getting two or three turnovers, that’s one thing. Ultimately, our job is to get the ball in the end zone, and we have to be more efficient doing that — all of us.”

Wilson isn’t the only one who has struggled on offense, though, so why is he the one taking the fall?

“I get that, and yet, I can’t replace the entire offensive line,” Payton said. “I can’t bring in five new receivers. If [the offense struggling] continues over a period of time, there will be another guy here talking to you, as well. These are difficult decisions. Obviously, there’s more attention when it’s the quarterback who’s under contract, but different than maybe earlier decisions we’ve made with last year’s prior starters.

Yes, his QB rating is in the top quarter of the league. But his yards in the air is in the bottom quarter. He's keeping a high completion percentage and low interception percentage because he's throwing short passes. Not exactly a hallmark of Peyton's offense. There's a solid argument that his benching was legit because of performance, whatever Team3 would have you believe.

The truth is, it's probably a combination of performance and finance....but if his performance was up to the standards expected from a $250 million QB, he wouldn't have been benched.
 

Torc

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
1,248
The Broncos want out of the contract extension with minimal losses that hasn't even kicked in yet (it starts next season). Between this and Watson I'm guessing teams are going to come back a bit from the "trade everything and pay everything for a QB" moves.
I really, really hope that these two contracts help end the "QB consuming large portions of the cap and holding a team for ransom". It sucks for the team AND the fans when a team is screwed for several years when their investment can't even come close to meeting the high expectations.
 

knownone

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
5,290
Reaction score
2,235
The Broncos better hope Sean Payton wasn't involved, as he claims. If emails or text messages connect him, that whole coach's decision defense goes out the window (even if it's likely true).
 

renofox

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
3,535
Location
Arizona
It will be bad for the Broncos if it goes.to arbitration.

There is clear evidence on record that a union complaint was filed 2 months before the benching, and the allegations in the complaint reflect exactly what allegedly occurred two months afterwards.

While not conclusive proof, it is overwhelming evidence against the Broncos that will be very difficult to discredit or undermine.

Russ is probably going to make more unearned bank off the Broncos due to their incompetence.
 

Torc

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
1,248
I don't understand what the complaint is. The Broncos have a player-asset. If they intend to release him before next season, it's only because that player's performance was not up to par. Of course they don't want to pay for a year that he won't be on the team. Even if they find that Payton is lying about the reasons (although again, I think the reasons are both performance and financial, or performance leading to the financial), so what? Is there a playing time guarantee in the contract? And teams ask players to renegotiate all the time. I don't see anything unethical in asking him to discuss a portion of his contract.

On the one hand I kind of have sympathy for the team. On the other hand, I hope this makes teams say "HELL NO" to these types of contracts in the future. They probably won't though.
 

Threedee

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
854
Location
Federal Way, WA
Don't piss off the PA. Remember what happened to the MLB back in 1994? It lost the World Series to the NFL and NASCAR.
 

Torc

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
1,248
This situation is reminding me of Derek Carr:

Carr in April 2022 signed a three-year, $121.5 million contract extension with the Raiders, which included $24.9 million guaranteed at signing (a $7.5 million signing bonus and $17.4 base salary for the 2022 season). However, the remaining $40.4 million in guarantees, which would be paid out over the 2023 and 2024 seasons, would only become available after Feb. 15, 2023 — or if Carr became injured at any point of the 2022 season.

Once it was apparent the Raiders were going to move on from Carr — they benched him for Jarrett Stidham in the last two games of the season — it no longer made sense to keep him beyond that date, or risk his getting injured.

If Carr had gotten injured, he would have had the next two seasons guaranteed. So the Raiders sat him the last two games of 2022.

They even asked him to change his contract - to waive the no-trade clause. I didn't see the NFLPA getting upset at them. Probably because it was GOOD for Carr - he got to choose his next location and negotiate a new contract as a result of being released. The big difference was he was playing well and was a desirable free agent.
 

Weadoption

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
729
The penalty should be 2 more 1st rounders from Denver and RW gets a fruit basket and keeps the money.
 

flv2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2022
Messages
1,267
Reaction score
964
Location
Bournemouth, UK
So Wilson will be paid for not playing 19 games rather than not playing 17 games. Oh the humanity!
 
Top