Von Miller rejects 114.5 million dollar offer

[CR91]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000667925/article/von-miller-rejects-broncos-contract-offer-of-1145m

 

thats insane. thats QB money

[csmopar]

Wow.....

[RockThatBlue]

I wish my life was so good that I could reject a 114 million dollar contract.

[ReMeDy]

This is what a Superbowl win does to a player's stock. It over-inflates their value. I say let him walk. There are tons of players who'd love to play for a team fresh off a Superbowl.

[oldunclemark]

  He's got to reconsider.....

..the only reason Denver can even make this offer is that they have low-cost QBs for the next few years.

$38 mil guaranteed? Id guess that is the issue

 I don't see how he could get more from the Broncos (or someone else) after this coming season..

He cant have a post-season as good as he had last year....

 

Somebody like DeMarcus Ware needs to take Von aside and tell him..

..'this IS the pot of gold you've been working towrds'

 

Just sign that paper

 

[crazycolt1]

I wonder how much influence his agent has in this? The agent could be telling Miller we can get more. Let's turn them down and see if we can get more. Besides, you don't want to go to camp do you?

[Gavin]

Most likely has to do with the number of years and not money. It could be a matter of hashing out when the guarantees kick in as well

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Most likely has to do with the number of years and not money. It could be a matter of hashing out when the guarantees kick in as well

That could very well be true. It might not be the money amount.

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, ReMeDy said:

This is what a Superbowl win does to a player's stock. It over-inflates their value. I say let him walk. There are tons of players who'd love to play for a team fresh off a Superbowl.

Not sure that it over in-flates their value, but it certainly over inflates egos.

[21isSuperman]

This is a mistake on Denver's part.  I'm of the strong opinion that only QBs are worth $100+ mil.  In a few years, they'll have to restructure and it will cause them more headache.  This is what the salary cap does, and I think it's good because it levels out the playing field.  But giving any non-QB around $20+ mil a year is a mistake.

 

Look at the top 10 paid defensive players based on average money in 2016:

1. Suh

2. Olivier Vernon

3. Justin Houston

4. Watt

5. Marcell Dareus

6. Gerald McCoy

7. Mo Wilkerson

8. Josh Norman

9. Robert Quinn

10. Malik Jackson

 

How many rings between all of them combined? Edit: 0 1 (Malik Jackson just won one).  And how close are they to winning a ring?  Is anyone really considering the Dolphins, Bills, Chiefs, Jets, Bucs, etc. as Super Bowl contenders?

 

Now look at the top 10 paid QBs by the same criteria:

1. Joe Flacco

2. Aaron Rodgers

3. Russell Wilson

4. Ben Roethlisberger

5. Eli Manning

6. Philip Rivers

7. Cam Newton

8. Matt Ryan

9. Tom Brady

10. Drew Brees

 

How many rings there? 12.  Even if you remove Brady because he won most of his rings when his salary was lower, you would have 8 rings among 9 QBs.  And how close are these guys to winning rings?  Seattle is an annual contender.  Same for Pittsburgh and Green Bay if they can stay healthy.  We just saw the Panthers make it to the Super Bowl.  The Patriots are the Patriots.

 

If you want to invest a lot of money into one position, make it your QB.  Giving a defensive player $20 mil a year is a mistake, in my opinion.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

This is a mistake on Denver's part.  I'm of the strong opinion that only QBs are worth $100+ mil.  In a few years, they'll have to restructure and it will cause them more headache.  This is what the salary cap does, and I think it's good because it levels out the playing field.  But giving any non-QB around $20+ mil a year is a mistake.

 

Look at the top 10 paid defensive players based on average money in 2016:

1. Suh

2. Olivier Vernon

3. Justin Houston

4. Watt

5. Marcell Dareus

6. Gerald McCoy

7. Mo Wilkerson

8. Josh Norman

9. Robert Quinn

10. Malik Jackson

 

How many rings between all of them combined? 0.  And how close are they to winning a ring?  Is anyone really considering the Dolphins, Bills, Chiefs, Jets, Bucs, etc. as Super Bowl contenders?

 

Now look at the top 10 paid QBs by the same criteria:

1. Joe Flacco

2. Aaron Rodgers

3. Russell Wilson

4. Ben Roethlisberger

5. Eli Manning

6. Philip Rivers

7. Cam Newton

8. Matt Ryan

9. Tom Brady

10. Drew Brees

 

How many rings there? 12.  Even if you remove Brady because he won most of his rings when his salary was lower, you would have 8 rings among 9 QBs.  And how close are these guys to winning rings?  Seattle is an annual contender.  Same for Pittsburgh and Green Bay if they can stay healthy.  We just saw the Panthers make it to the Super Bowl.  The Patriots are the Patriots.

 

If you want to invest a lot of money into one position, make it your QB.  Giving a defensive player $20 mil a year is a mistake, in my opinion.

I don't think your the only one with that opinion.

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, 21isSuperman said:

If you want to invest a lot of money into one position, make it your QB.  Giving a defensive player $20 mil a year is a mistake, in my opinion.

I get what you're saying,  and I don't disagree....   however,  Denver's Defense won that Super Bowl

 

And that comment is coming from Peyton's biggest fan  (but you already knew that).

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Denvers defense was their offense

[southwest1]

As Ian Rapport said, "where do the Broncos and Miller stand on guaranteed money and how much does he stand to make over the first three years of the deal." 

 

In laymen's terms, why lucrative contract deals are rejected in round 1 negotiations boils down to this: Whether the bulk of the money is front loaded or not. Translation: Von Miller probably wants the biggest payout on the deal within the first 2 yrs as opposed to the tale end of the contract to protect his financial security from a life changing NFL injury. 

 

Miller's not leaving Denver. The deal will get done by July 10th or 12th IMO. 

[southwest1]

26 minutes ago, 12to13 said:

Denvers defense was their offense

I agree with that in theory 12-13 except for 1 name: WR Emmanuel Sanders. 

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

I wonder how much influence his agent has in this? The agent could be telling Miller we can get more. Let's turn them down and see if we can get more. Besides, you don't want to go to camp do you?

So, Von's pulling a Brett Favre?  Yeah that sounds exactly right CC1. 

 

Why break a sweat when you're in high demand right? In a twisted way, it's a sharp, play hookie move. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, southwest1 said:

So, Von's pulling a Brett Favre?  Yeah that sounds exactly right CC1. 

 

Why break a sweat when you're in high demand right? In a twisted way, it's a sharp, play hookie move. 

He's got the Broncos by the (you know what). Any team would love to have him. I wish we had him.

[southwest1]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He's got the Broncos by the (you know what). Any team would love to have him. I wish we had him.

Yes, Miller does. I agree 100% CBE. That's why I disagree slightly with 21isSuperman. Von can literally take games over bringing down Brady & Newton just by being near a QB's feet. Von's very similar to Lawrence Taylor that way. 

 

Is Miller worth such a steep price? Hades yes he is given his ability to throw elite QBs around like rag dolls or give his teammates a chance to clean up after him anyway. 

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, Gramz said:

 

And that comment is coming from Peyton's biggest fan  (but you already knew that).

What you said in parentheses was priceless Gramz. 

 

That's a rhetorical statement if I ever heard one...Well played...

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, Gramz said:

I get what you're saying,  and I don't disagree....   however,  Denver's Defense won that Super Bowl

 

And that comment is coming from Peyton's biggest fan  (but you already knew that).

I agree fully.  I'm a "defense wins championships" type of person myself.  If I'm going to invest a lot of money into one single player, it will be a QB.  But when it comes to one side of the ball, I prefer to invest more money/draft picks into the defense.  I'm ok playing with average RBs and WRs because I expect my QB, who I'm giving 8 figures per year, to make those guys around him better.

[southwest1]

37 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree fully.  I'm a "defense wins championships" type of person myself.  If I'm going to invest a lot of money into one single player, it will be a QB.  But when it comes to one side of the ball, I prefer to invest more money/draft picks into the defense.  I'm ok playing with average RBs and WRs because I expect my QB, who I'm giving 8 figures per year, to make those guys around him better.

That makes perfect sense 90% of the time from a front office budgetary perspective 21. History is in your favor throwing the most salary cap money at your franchise QB. However, when the Giants won in 2007 & the Ravens in 2000 neither Trent Dilfer nor Eli Manning put up a touchdown free for all, offensive scoring fest. 

 

With so many teams getting huge chucks of yardage through the air now, DCs only have 2 ways to neutralize this threat: a relentless pass rush or shut down DBs & hard hitting safeties colliding with WRs & TEs on deep slant routes. 

 

I understand where your coming from 21 & you're not wrong, but I just prefer elite pass rushers wearing QBs down by the middle of the 4th QTR. Just keep being an annoying gnat that makes the opposing field general exhausted & frustrated in the 2nd half. 

 

Yes, I realize INDY in 2016 is build like the 1999 Rams to kill foes thru the air. If our o-line holds up like I expect it to this yr., a lot of these INDY detractors will be singing a different tune by week 8 I think. This showering of love on Jacksonville to me is hilarious. Can they handle heightened expectations placed on them now? I'm not holding my breath personally. 

[crazycolt1]

22 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

That makes perfect sense 90% of the time from a front office budgetary perspective 21. History is in your favor throwing the most salary cap money at your franchise QB. However, when the Giants won in 2007 & the Ravens in 2000 neither Trent Dilfer nor Eli Manning put up a touchdown free for all, offensive scoring fest. 

 

With so many teams getting huge chucks of yardage through the air now, DCs only have 2 ways to neutralize this threat: a relentless pass rush or shut down DBs & hard hitting safeties colliding with WRs & TEs on deep slant routes. 

 

I understand where your coming from 21 & you're not wrong, but I just prefer elite pass rushers wearing QBs down by the middle of the 4th QTR. Just keep being an annoying gnat that makes the opposing field general exhausted & frustrated in the 2nd half. 

 

Yes, I realize INDY in 2016 is build like the 1999 Rams to kill foes thru the air. If our o-line holds up like I expect it to this yr., a lot of these INDY detractors will be singing a different tune by week 8 I think. This showering of love on Jacksonville to me is hilarious. Can they handle heightened expectations placed on them now? I'm not holding my breath personally. 

I think teams like the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 2003 Tampa Bay, 2007 Giants and 2015 Bronco's are few and far between as the listing of the years show. These are 5 years out of how many? The thing these teams have in common beside their defenses is not making mistakes, ball control and some pretty good special teams play.

 

[southwest1]

31 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think teams like the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 2003 Tampa Bay, 2007 Giants and 2015 Bronco's are few and far between as the listing of the years show. These are 5 years out of how many? The thing these teams have in common beside their defenses is not making mistakes, ball control and some pretty good special teams play.

 

Ball control or winning the time of possession battle is probably the best component of winning football franchises no matter what era they played in. Great point CC1. 

 

Dominant defenses are rare as you correctly suggest too. However, I don't view smothering defenses as a scarce anomaly across NFL history. No, I view them as periods of time to be praised & revered since referees are encouraged to hamstring defenses with flags every chance they get while at the same time treating QBs like fine china if you even graze their face mask with a fingernail.

 

Unless of course it's Luck. Then, please by all means throw out your shoulder ref heaving laundry on the field. LOL! I'll take a 15 yard penalty sure.  

 

Good call on the 2002 Bucs. John Lynch is 1 of my favorite safeties around. The man was a sledge hammer.  He better make the HOF cut this time or I'm not gonna be a happy camper either. John's an exceptional play by play broadcaster announcer on Fox too. 

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Ball control or winning the time of possession battle is probably the best component of winning football franchises no matter what era they played in. Great point CC1. 

 

Dominant defenses are rare as you correctly suggest too. However, I don't view smothering defenses as a scarce anomaly across NFL history. No, I view them as periods of time to be praised & revered since referees are encouraged to hamstring defenses with flags every chance they get while at the same time treating QBs like fine china if you even graze their face mask with a fingernail.

 

Unless of course it's Luck. Then, please by all means throw out your shoulder ref heaving laundry on the field. LOL! I'll take a 15 yard penalty sure.  

 

Good call on the 2002 Bucs. John Lynch is 1 of my favorite safeties around. The man was a sledge hammer.  He better make the HOF cut this time or I'm not gonna be a happy camper either. John's an exceptional play by play broadcaster announcer on Fox too. 

While I understand your point of view on QBs being overly protected there is a very good reason. The biggest salaries are paid to the QBs and there are less than 32 starting QBs in the NFL. There is a reason they are called franchise QBs. Without them in the lineup unfortunately the teams end up exactly how the Colts ended up last season. The NFL is a business and the investors want their highest dollar investments protected. If you were wearing the shoes of an owner you would be no different as I would be the same. Over the last few years there have been more and more rules that by design protect more players besides the QBs. The QB is pretty much a defenseless player when it comes to protection. Receivers have recently been deemed so as well. Now with the rule change regarding chop blocks and rule changes in how blocks are made have included linemen. So now it is not only QBs who are protected it is also other players on the team.  Injuries are part of the game but keeping you best players on the field is also very important for the game to keep the fans watching. You think QBs are treated like a fine china? They are, because great ones are few and far between. Having one on your team can make your team an instant contender.

[southwest1]

40 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

While I understand your point of view on QBs being overly protected there is a very good reason. The biggest salaries are paid to the QBs and there are less than 32 starting QBs in the NFL. There is a reason they are called franchise QBs. Without them in the lineup unfortunately the teams end up exactly how the Colts ended up last season. The NFL is a business and the investors want their highest dollar investments protected. If you were wearing the shoes of an owner you would be no different as I would be the same. Over the last few years there have been more and more rules that by design protect more players besides the QBs. The QB is pretty much a defenseless player when it comes to protection. Receivers have recently been deemed so as well. Now with the rule change regarding chop blocks and rule changes in how blocks are made have included linemen. So now it is not only QBs who are protected it is also other players on the team.  Injuries are part of the game but keeping you best players on the field is also very important for the game to keep the fans watching. You think QBs are treated like a fine china? They are, because great ones are few and far between. Having one on your team can make your team an instant contender.

I wouldn't say that a franchise QB is a defenseless player when it comes to protection since they are allowed to slide feet first when they scramble & RBs are there for pass protection on blitzes when necessary. Deacon Jones didn't handle QBs with kid gloves that's for sure. Yes, I know. That's a bygone era. I do miss the head slap though once in awhile when I'm feeling nostalgic for some good ole fashion brutality in the trenches occasionally. I can't lie. I miss those days sometimes. 

 

I do feel bad for LBs though or safeties since in the heat of game competition you can't hit high anymore so all that's left is to go low & target the legs or the knees & if a WR bends down, the trajectory of the collision changes in a split second. 

 

I get what you're saying CC1, but a lot of fans enjoy watching a stout defense as opposed to a carnival, 8th wonder of the world offense. It just depends on if a fan likes speed or grind it out low scoring bloody brawls I guess. 

 

Some rules are good like restricting a wedge or wall line on special teams & I never wanna see any linemen rolled over on by another player from behind, but the league has to let LBs/DEs earn a living too. 

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I wouldn't say that a franchise QB is a defenseless player when it comes to protection since they are allowed to slide feet first when they scramble & RBs are there for pass protection on blitzes when necessary. Deacon Jones didn't handle QBs with kid gloves that's for sure. Yes, I know. That's a bygone era. I do miss the head slap though once in awhile when I'm feeling nostalgic for some good ole fashion brutality in the trenches occasionally. I can't lie. I miss those days sometimes. 

 

I do feel bad for LBs though or safeties since in the heat of game competition you can't hit high anymore so all that's left is to go low & target the legs or the knees & if a WR bends down, the trajectory of the collision changes in a split second. 

 

I get what you're saying CC1, but a lot of fans enjoy watching a stout defense as opposed to a carnival, 8th wonder of the world offense. It just depends on if a fan likes speed or grind it out low scoring bloody brawls I guess. 

 

Some rules are good like restricting a wedge or wall line on special teams & I never wanna see any linemen rolled over on by another player from behind, but the league has to let LBs/DEs earn a living too. 

 The game is by nature a very violent game without allowing a player to use assault tactics to purposely cause a concussion or to use his hands as a weapon. Sorry, I cant say I miss that. I am not in favor of any player purposely hurting another and IMO allowing that is exactly why it is not allowed anymore. There are plenty of other sports that has that type of violence that is permissible. Boxing, MMA and hockey come to mind. We get to know these players and to watch another player hurt another player with the intent to injure is over the line IMO. These players are playing for their livelihood and to allow those types of actions goes a lot deeper than playing football as a sport. Sorry, with respect this is one we will have to disagree upon. Next subject?

[OffensivelyPC]

12 hours ago, Gavin said:

Most likely has to do with the number of years and not money. It could be a matter of hashing out when the guarantees kick in as well

Yeah, I'd say the guarantees are the issue.  It's reportedly $20m less than Suh's.

[21isSuperman]

11 hours ago, southwest1 said:

That makes perfect sense 90% of the time from a front office budgetary perspective 21. History is in your favor throwing the most salary cap money at your franchise QB. However, when the Giants won in 2007 & the Ravens in 2000 neither Trent Dilfer nor Eli Manning put up a touchdown free for all, offensive scoring fest. 

 

With so many teams getting huge chucks of yardage through the air now, DCs only have 2 ways to neutralize this threat: a relentless pass rush or shut down DBs & hard hitting safeties colliding with WRs & TEs on deep slant routes. 

 

I understand where your coming from 21 & you're not wrong, but I just prefer elite pass rushers wearing QBs down by the middle of the 4th QTR. Just keep being an annoying gnat that makes the opposing field general exhausted & frustrated in the 2nd half. 

 

Yes, I realize INDY in 2016 is build like the 1999 Rams to kill foes thru the air. If our o-line holds up like I expect it to this yr., a lot of these INDY detractors will be singing a different tune by week 8 I think. This showering of love on Jacksonville to me is hilarious. Can they handle heightened expectations placed on them now? I'm not holding my breath personally. 

For every rule, there are exceptions.  I would rather pay big money to an elite QB, but yes, there are cases where elite QBs don't win Super Bowls (eg. Dan Marino) and very meh QBs win them (Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer) because of the team they have.  I'm of the opinion that you should invest your money into your defense and OL if you have an elite QB, like we do.  I think a good QB can make his WRs/TEs/RBs better with his play.  Give him a good OL that gives him time to stand in the pocket and he will find the open guy.  Give him a defense that will stop the other team and he can take a few risks and be more aggressive. 

 

Of course, there are two sides to it.  On the one hand, he's an elite QB, so let him use his elite talents to make those around him better.  Invest into the defense and OL.  On the other hand, he's an elite QB, so surround him with playmakers to maximize his potential.

 

When the Broncos signed Peyton, Elway made a number of moves to improve the defensive side of the ball.  His first picks in 2012-2015 were all defensive players.  He made big splashes in free agency with TJ Ward, Aqib Talib, and DeMarcus Ware.  I remember some people were complaining that Elway should be giving Peyton more playmakers, but that's what Polian had done in Indy and it only resulted in 1 Super Bowl in 10+ years.

 

It may seem contradictory, but it isn't.  If it comes down to a single position getting $20 mil a year, it should be your QB.  After that, spend more money on defense than offense because your highly paid QB should be able to make those around him better.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

This is a mistake on Denver's part.  I'm of the strong opinion that only QBs are worth $100+ mil.  In a few years, they'll have to restructure and it will cause them more headache.  This is what the salary cap does, and I think it's good because it levels out the playing field.  But giving any non-QB around $20+ mil a year is a mistake.

 

Look at the top 10 paid defensive players based on average money in 2016:

1. Suh

2. Olivier Vernon

3. Justin Houston

4. Watt

5. Marcell Dareus

6. Gerald McCoy

7. Mo Wilkerson

8. Josh Norman

9. Robert Quinn

10. Malik Jackson

 

How many rings between all of them combined? Edit: 0 1 (Malik Jackson just won one).  And how close are they to winning a ring?  Is anyone really considering the Dolphins, Bills, Chiefs, Jets, Bucs, etc. as Super Bowl contenders?

 

Now look at the top 10 paid QBs by the same criteria:

1. Joe Flacco

2. Aaron Rodgers

3. Russell Wilson

4. Ben Roethlisberger

5. Eli Manning

6. Philip Rivers

7. Cam Newton

8. Matt Ryan

9. Tom Brady

10. Drew Brees

 

How many rings there? 12.  Even if you remove Brady because he won most of his rings when his salary was lower, you would have 8 rings among 9 QBs.  And how close are these guys to winning rings?  Seattle is an annual contender.  Same for Pittsburgh and Green Bay if they can stay healthy.  We just saw the Panthers make it to the Super Bowl.  The Patriots are the Patriots.

 

If you want to invest a lot of money into one position, make it your QB.  Giving a defensive player $20 mil a year is a mistake, in my opinion.

That is an interesting take on things but let me ask you, how long should that be true for?  The salary cap is going up every year.  At one point is was crazy to think about anyone getting a $100 million dollar contract.  I think both JJ Watt and Miller make a strong case that some defensive players are worth a $100 million + contract.

 

 

[21isSuperman]

10 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

That is an interesting take on things but let me ask you, how long should that be true for?  The salary cap is going up every year.  At one point is was crazy to think about anyone getting a $100 million dollar contract.  I think both JJ Watt and Miller make a strong case that some defensive players are worth a $100 million + contract.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  If the salary cap continues to rise, there will be a point where it's warranted to pay defensive players $20 mil a year.  I'm sure there are some deep analytical things one could do to determine how much of the total cap should be spent on a defensive player or non-QB.  I looked into any of that though.

[Valpo2004]

15 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

This is a mistake on Denver's part.  I'm of the strong opinion that only QBs are worth $100+ mil.  In a few years, they'll have to restructure and it will cause them more headache.  This is what the salary cap does, and I think it's good because it levels out the playing field.  But giving any non-QB around $20+ mil a year is a mistake.

 

Look at the top 10 paid defensive players based on average money in 2016:

1. Suh

2. Olivier Vernon

3. Justin Houston

4. Watt

5. Marcell Dareus

6. Gerald McCoy

7. Mo Wilkerson

8. Josh Norman

9. Robert Quinn

10. Malik Jackson

 

How many rings between all of them combined? Edit: 0 1 (Malik Jackson just won one).  And how close are they to winning a ring?  Is anyone really considering the Dolphins, Bills, Chiefs, Jets, Bucs, etc. as Super Bowl contenders?

 

Now look at the top 10 paid QBs by the same criteria:

1. Joe Flacco

2. Aaron Rodgers

3. Russell Wilson

4. Ben Roethlisberger

5. Eli Manning

6. Philip Rivers

7. Cam Newton

8. Matt Ryan

9. Tom Brady

10. Drew Brees

 

How many rings there? 12.  Even if you remove Brady because he won most of his rings when his salary was lower, you would have 8 rings among 9 QBs.  And how close are these guys to winning rings?  Seattle is an annual contender.  Same for Pittsburgh and Green Bay if they can stay healthy.  We just saw the Panthers make it to the Super Bowl.  The Patriots are the Patriots.

 

If you want to invest a lot of money into one position, make it your QB.  Giving a defensive player $20 mil a year is a mistake, in my opinion.

 

Umm to be fair ALL of those guys except Tom Brady's last ring where won before their current contracts.  And most where being paid significantly less.  Especially Wilson

 

I will grant that many of those guys are on contending teams, but the rings argument doesn't count for much IMO.

 

Also what I'm noticing about the article is that it never mentions how long the 114.5 M contract is for or how much guaranteed money is in it.

 

Perhaps the length of the contract was too long for his liking.  Perhaps it didn't give him enough guaranteed money.  A 10 year 114.5 M contract with only $5 M in guaranteed money should be rejected outright.  

 

I think we need more information then what's given.  

 

 

[Valpo2004]

18 hours ago, CR91 said:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000667925/article/von-miller-rejects-broncos-contract-offer-of-1145m

 

thats insane. thats QB money

 

How do you know that's QB money, the article doesn't state how long the contract had him on the hook for.  It just gives a total and proceeds to remind you that the total is the highest total for any non QB.  (A meaningless statement because a big part of the total is how many years the contract is for.  A 10 year contract for $114.5 M isn't the same as a 5 year contract for $114.5)

 

That's great but if it's a 10 year contract it's a crappy ultra team friendly contract that Von Miller should throw on the floor and urinate upon rather then sign.

 

What if there was very little to no guaranteed money.  

 

There is more to this stuff then total $$$$

 

The article gives you absolutely zip in information yet everyone feels justified in condemning him for rejecting it.

[CR91]

Just now, Valpo2004 said:

 

How do you know that's QB money, the article doesn't state how long the contract had him on the hook for.  It just gives a total and proceeds to remind you that the total is the highest total for any non QB.

 

That's great but if it's a 10 year contract it's a crappy ultra team friendly contract that Von Miller should throw on the floor and urinate upon rather then sign.

 

What if there was very little to no guaranteed money.  

 

There is more to this stuff then total $$$$

 

No I don't know the length, but usually these are 5-6 year contracts

[Valpo2004]

38 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

No I don't know the length, but usually these are 5-6 year contracts

 

JJ Watt's contract put him on the hook for 7 years.  

 

Usually doesn't mean anything here. . . especially when looking at superstar contracts.

 

Also you don't know the guaranteed money either.  That's a huge part of it.

[CR91]

9 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

JJ Watt's contract put him on the hook for 7 years.  

 

Usually doesn't mean anything here. . . especially when looking at superstar contracts.

 

Also you don't know the guaranteed money either.  That's a huge part of it.

 

If I had to take a guess at the guaranteed, I'd say 70m

[Valpo2004]

38 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

If I had to take a guess at the guaranteed, I'd say 70m

 

But we're guessing here.  

 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot less.  From what I can see, Elway has done a good job in the past undercutting players in terms of guaranteed money.  

 

I remember when they extended Clady a while back.  At the time he was one of the top LT in the game and at the time had never missed a single game.  

 

I forget the exact amount of guaranteed money but I do know that he could be cut for cap savings in just the 2nd year of the contract!!  Usually top players can't be cut for cap savings til the 3rd year.  

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Elway was trying to under shoot it in terms of guaranteed money.

[CR91]

52 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

But we're guessing here.  

 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot less.  From what I can see, Elway has done a good job in the past undercutting players in terms of guaranteed money.  

 

I remember when they extended Clady a while back.  At the time he was one of the top LT in the game and at the time had never missed a single game.  

 

I forget the exact amount of guaranteed money but I do know that he could be cut for cap savings in just the 2nd year of the contract!!  Usually top players can't be cut for cap savings til the 3rd year.  

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Elway was trying to under shoot it in terms of guaranteed money.

 

I doubt Miller will get undercut. No way Elway risks losing a player of Miller's caliber

[B~Town]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

JJ Watt's contract put him on the hook for 7 years.  

 

Usually doesn't mean anything here. . . especially when looking at superstar contracts.

 

Also you don't know the guaranteed money either.  That's a huge part of it.

reports are 5 year with 41 in guaranteed money Miller wants closer to 60 mil guaranteed .

[-JJ-]

17 hours ago, Gramz said:

Not sure that it over in-flates their value, but it certainly over inflates egos.

LOL

[shakedownstreet]

i can relate to von. i just rejected $200 million from my employer