Is the SB window closed in Denver?

[Superman]

How are we defining flexability? Ability to sign other FA's? Or ability to resign there own FA?

 

Assuming they make the cuts discussed earlier in the thread (Bailey,2TE) we are talking about what, $24mil?

 

They'd then need to resign pretty much the entire secondary. Or sign new ones. At least 3 DL/LBs (Ayers Woodyard Phillips). As well as 3-4 offensive weapons (Moreno, Decker, Caldwell, Holliday).

 

I think they can kiss Moreno/Decker goodbye....Lets assume a cheap secondary and DL/LB core at $2 a piece, about 6 guys, theres $12 gone right there, the draft class will probably be around $4ish, now we are at $16. Caldwell/Holiday at $1 a piece. $18....We are looking at them having about $6mill left over to sign depth throughout the rest of the roster, with this hypothetical (and more than likely wrong) scenario.    

 

I just cant picture the Broncos getting better, only worse....Yea they will gain Miller/Clady back which is a huge plus. But does it offset the loss of the rest of there roster? I dont think so. 

 

Cap flexibility doesn't mean that they don't have some tough decisions to make. Obviously, they do. 

 

How these decisions affect their team is another matter. I think their secondary is easily the weakest link on the team, so it needs to be re-tooled anyways. Guys like DRC and Harris are good, but the others are very "meh." Getting Rahim Moore back from injury might be a good thing, but they'll still need to add other players for depth and competition. I think getting Miller and Clady back offsets any losses in FA, and if any of the principal players walk, that's more cap room to replace them with. Plus, they've drafted pretty well the past three years, and have some young players waiting for opportunity.

 

I think Moreno is gone, and that's okay. They drafted Ball, and adding backs is not difficult to do. Decker, DRC and Beadles are the main guys. Maybe they can only keep two of those three. Decker will be about the market; they can offer him five years, $45m, and it will be a question of whether another team will offer him Mike Wallace money to walk, and whether he wants to take the extra money. If so, he's not irreplaceable. I'm a Decker fan, and have been since he was in college, but there are numerous WR prospects in the first three rounds of the draft who can help fill the void. Plus there's another 15-20% of production that we know Welker is capable of (and that's being conservative). 

 

There are a ton of different ways to splice this. I'm not trying to paint a picture of a team that can do whatever they want in the offseason because their cap isn't an issue. I'm just saying that I think they have the room to make the moves they need to make to continue to contend. This is business as usual for NFL franchises in the offseason. 

[MAC]

I think it was the Denver O that had people picking them. Most historic of all time and Manning played pretty well in the playoffs as well vs SD and NE. I agree though it felt more like a pick'em game. I think the real X factor was Wilson who showed tremendous poise for a second year QB making his first SB appearance. In contrast, Kaep looked pretty lost last year vs the Ravens until the lights went out.

Yes, I've consistently been impressed with Wilson - much more than I ever have been by Kapernick who I really don't like.

 

It "felt" like the Broncos did a good job on the first couple of Seattle drives because they held them to field goals, but those FGs came at the end of LONG drives. The time of possession early on was vastly favoring Seattle - a recipe for exhaustion and disaster later in the game if the O didn't turn it around.

 

Wilson was inconsistent, but had several superb individual efforts that extended drives. After awhile it "felt" like the Denver defense just couldn't get off of the field, which of course amped up the pressure on the Denver O to "make something happen". Against THAT defense that's not a good place to be. I was half-expecting a turnover on every third down.

[ViriLudant]

I think you have a loose definition of expert. I think a lot of football people talked themselves into picking the Broncos because the wanted another win for Manning. But I guarantee the real experts put money on the Seahawks.

Define "real."

I mean, I tend to agree that the talking heads on ESPN, SI, etc, are no more of an expert than you and I. But if you look up picks by former NFL players, I believe that a majority still picked Denver.

[BOTT]

Define "real."

I mean, I tend to agree that the talking heads on ESPN, SI, etc, are no more of an expert than you and I. But if you look up picks by former NFL players, I believe that a majority still picked Denver.

Real experts? People who make a living betting on sports. It's pretty telling that Rob Riggle was better at picking games than almost everyone at Fox.

[IndyTrav]

Real experts? People who make a living betting on sports. It's pretty telling that Rob Riggle was better at picking games than almost everyone at Fox.

 

 

Directly after the Ravens SB win, Pats were 6-1...49ers 7-1...Broncos 8-1...Packers/Texans 10-1.....

 

Preseason (after draft) favorites in Vegas were the 49ers....6-1...2nd was Den. 7-1....

 

2 days before the season started 49ers/Broncos were tied favorites at 6-1....Seattle was 17-2....

 

Right before playoffs, Denver was 3-1 odds for SB victory, Sea was 4-1

[BOTT]

Directly after the Ravens SB win, Pats were 6-1...49ers 7-1...Broncos 8-1...Packers/Texans 10-1.....

 

Preseason (after draft) favorites in Vegas were the 49ers....6-1...2nd was Den. 7-1....

 

2 days before the season started 49ers/Broncos were tied favorites at 6-1....Seattle was 17-2....

 

Right before playoffs, Denver was 3-1 odds for SB victory, Sea was 4-1

Those lines are for Vegas to make money and protect themselves from the dumb betting public when they get lucky. It's not necessarily who they think is going to win. Why do you think the line for the SB changed from Seattle -1 to Seattle +3? It wasn't because they suddenly changed their mind.

[IndyTrav]

Those lines are for Vegas to make money and protect themselves from the dumb betting public when they get lucky. It's not necessarily who they think is going to win. Why do you think the line for the SB changed from Seattle -1 to Seattle +3? It wasn't because they suddenly changed their mind.

 

I get that. The line is for betting purposes. Not whos going to win or lose. 

 

Just showing that the lowest odds, consistently, were the Broncos. Which means Vegas and the general public felt they were the safest bet.