jsthomp2007 Posted May 14, 2021 Share Posted May 14, 2021 58 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said: Fleming isn't a bad backup, but I would rather have had Jermaine Elemenuor (or however you spell it). He can be a RT, and he can also be backup inside as well. Yeah, it is always good to get inside something for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 14, 2021 Share Posted May 14, 2021 (edited) Well it’s official. Expect a grievance (and the NFLPA to lose). Not going after the bonus money IMO is the right call - whether or not he earned the contract James had the right to opt out. James’ decision cost him 2021 salary by working out off-site. But James wasn’t done with the intention of not playing. So leaving the bonus $ untouched really makes it about the bad advice NFLPA gave their players to take on their own liability. Edited May 15, 2021 by Broncofan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jolly red giant Posted May 15, 2021 Share Posted May 15, 2021 19 hours ago, Broncofan said: Not going after the bonus money IMO is the right call - whether or not he earned the contract James had the right to opt out. James’ decision cost him 2021 salary by working out off-site. But unit wasn’t done with the intention of not playing. So leaving the bonus $ untouched really makes it about the bad advice NFLPA gave their players to take on their own liability. I agree - terminating the contract was always likely to happen - not going after the signing bonus means the team wasn't trying to screw him over. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutler06 Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 If I were the Broncos I would implicate if the grievance is initiated, that $3M is back on the table. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) On 5/15/2021 at 10:44 PM, Cutler06 said: If I were the Broncos I would implicate if the grievance is initiated, that $3M is back on the table. The FO doesn't need to take that approach. It's in the CBA, the team is very secure here. The team doesn't need to come off as more hard-***, or vindictive. The NFLPA is the one that's going to take the heat for this. James himself is calling out the NFLPA to "do the right thing". That's pretty telling. And with James & Hamilton's injuries.... I'll say it again - the CBA is so team-friendly it's ridiculous. As much as I don't fault players for getting the max out of their deals, holding out where they can, etc. - it's mind-boggling the NFLPA thinks this issue is worth boycotting OTA's for - when they agreed to a new TEN-year CBA last March, and didn't get this addressed in June 2020, when they had the leverage of getting the 2020 season back on track. They could have easily had this be a major issue last June, and used the leverage of starting up the 2020 season, to make it happen. Instead, they chose a time where the only option put players who wanted to work out at personal liability. It's also very obvious players didn't realize the personal liability they took on with off-site workouts - hence, their return to team facilities for 2nd phase of OTA's. SMH @ the NFLPA. Edited May 17, 2021 by Broncofan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizmo78 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Broncofan said: The FO doesn't need to take that approach. It's in the CBA, the team is very secure here. The team doesn't need to come off as more hard-***, or vindictive. The NFLPA is the one that's going to take the heat for this. James himself is calling out the NFLPA to "do the right thing". That's pretty telling. And with James & Hamilton's injuries.... I'll say it again - the CBA is so team-friendly it's ridiculous. As much as I don't fault players for getting the max out of their deals, holding out where they can, etc. - it's mind-boggling the NFLPA thinks this issue is worth boycotting OTA's for - when they agreed to a new TEN-year CBA last March, and didn't get this addressed in June 2020, when they had the leverage of getting the 2020 season back on track. They could have easily had this be a major issue last June, and used the leverage of starting up the 2020 season, to make it happen. Instead, they chose a time where the only option put players who wanted to work out at personal liability. It's also very obvious players didn't realize the personal liability they took on with off-site workouts - hence, their return to team facilities for 2nd phase of OTA's. SMH @ the NFLPA. The issue when talking about how good/bad the NFLPA is, is that they are responsible for an incredibly large range of players. Fans focus on the top 22 players on the roster and forget that they are only 1/3rd of nfl rosters. Many of the decisions being made show how much sway the other 2/3rds of the roster has on decisions being made. The players themselves are incredibly divided and the average career length (somewhere around 3-4 years) makes it incredibly difficult to create leverage. PS2's response of why he was at minicamp is a perfect example of that. Edited May 17, 2021 by grizmo78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, grizmo78 said: The issue when talking about how good/bad the NFLPA is, is that they are responsible for an incredibly large range of players. Fans focus on the top 22 players on the roster and forget that they are only 1/3rd of nfl rosters. Many of the decisions being made show how much sway the other 2/3rds of the roster has on decisions being made. The players themselves are incredibly divided and the average career length (somewhere around 3-4 years) makes it incredibly difficult to create leverage. Absolutely fair - the fact that 2/3 of the players are min-wage players no doubt makes it challenging for them to work effectively. But for this issue, the fact that 71 players now are at team facilities today - shows how the NFLPA can't message effectively. It's pretty clear most of the players didn't realize what boycotting OTA's meant in terms of liability. The NFLPA saying that OTA's are voluntary, and recommended no workouts at all - shows how out of touch the leadership is with that 2/3 majority. Those guys can't afford to get out of shape - they'll be replaced quickly. So if you're going to work out - going to team-approved off-site or team facilities is the way to go. Here's the kicker - the NFLPA had a TON of leverage last July, when the season was in limbo. This is clearly an issue that's important to them - but do they put it on the table with the same vigor as they do now? Nope. They had all sorts of leverage then. Now, they have no leverage except a boycott that puts players at risk. And clearly who didn't understand that, either - given how many suddenly showed up this week. There are a lot of strikes the NFLPA faces that you've outlined that makes it hard for them to be as effective as other player unions. It's why I think issues like guaranteed contracts, will never happen in the NFL (and the best they can hope for are partial minimum guarantees). But stuff like this shows it's not just about how hard it is. The guys at the top have no ability to negotiate strategically, and it shows. Having the 16-game season included as a fixed number, or at least get more concessions at the time of the CBA in exchange for leaving it open-ended, is another prime example. Edited May 17, 2021 by Broncofan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizmo78 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Broncofan said: There are a lot of strikes the NFLPA faces that you've outlined that makes it hard for them to be as effective as other player unions. t's why I think issues like guaranteed contracts, will never happen in the NFL (and the best they can hope for are partial minimum guarantees). But stuff like this shows it's not just about how hard it is. The guys at the top have no ability to negotiate strategically, and it shows. Having the 16-game season included as a fixed number, or at least get more concessions at the time of the CBA in exchange for leaving it open-ended, is another prime example. I honestly think the 2/3rd majority are the ones that are happy about the 17 game schedule and hoping for 18. They potentially get more playing time, expanded rosters gives them more job security, increased wages, etc. I don't like it, especially without the 2nd bye week but given preseason games are being cut (which i'm in the minority who hopes it's not cut less than 3 games), this actually seems like a middle ground they were ok with. Definitely would have been nice to get a little more concussions from the owners for it, but again, leverage is key and the owners likely knew most players were likely in favor of it due to the reasons above. Edited May 17, 2021 by grizmo78 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, grizmo78 said: I honestly think the 2/3rd majority are the ones that are happy about the 17 game schedule and hoping for 18. They potentially get more playing time, expanded rosters gives them more job security, increased wages, etc. I don't like it, especially without the 2nd bye week but given preseason games are being cut (which i'm in the minority who hopes it's not cut less than 3 games), this actually seems like a middle ground they were ok with. Definitely would have been nice to get a little more concussions from the owners for it, but again, leverage is key and the owners likely knew most players were likely in favor of it due to the reasons above. For sure the biggest obstacle the NFLPA faces is that the average player lasts 3+ seasons, if they're lucky. So yeah, they may not object to the extra games - not realizing that it's likely shortening their career if they are successful. 1 less season is a much bigger killer than 1/17 pay raise. But the players in that bind are seldom thinking that far ahead, either. On that count, I understand why it wasn't a deal breaker....but I don't think the players even thought to include it on the table, either. Nothing in the reports suggests that it was even discussed. That's the part that should worry players. Agree with concessions being hard to get - but if there was a time to press for OTA and off-season exemption from being on-site, it was last July, when their approval was needed to go ahead with the 2020 season. Doing it now was literally a time with 1/10 the leverage. It's an example of the lack of forward thinking vision for players in the NFLPA. It's not hard to think that this offseason may have necessitated a change in the normal offseason pattern, even as of last June/July. Given the number of opt-outs last year's, it's impossible to think this wasn't going to be an issue. To choose now to take a stand, rather than last year....man. I get the split in 16 vs. more games, but on this one, wasn't hard to forecast. Edited May 17, 2021 by Broncofan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Looks like the FO may be going the same route with Hamilton. Obviously stickier from a PR perspective, the middle ground would be an injury settlement both team and player/agent agree upon: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bMiller031 Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 7 hours ago, Broncofan said: Looks like the FO may be going the same route with Hamilton. Obviously stickier from a PR perspective, the middle ground would be an injury settlement both team and player/agent agree upon: Sucks when it happens to a replaceable mid round guy on his rookie deal - a good guy too. James is another story... made his money, took a season off (+ a half, really) from football, premium position, etc. and garners much less sympathy from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 35 minutes ago, bMiller031 said: Sucks when it happens to a replaceable mid round guy on his rookie deal - a good guy too. James is another story... made his money, took a season off (+ a half, really) from football, premium position, etc. and garners much less sympathy from me. It does show though that when it comes to business - orgs aren’t sentimental at all. I understand the lack of sympathy for James. But we shouldn’t ever blame a player for holding out for top dollar, or exercising their rights under the CBA even when it’s unpopular with fans - it’s just business. When the shoe’s on the other foot, orgs act in a very similar fashion. Hamilton’s case underlines this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bMiller031 Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Broncofan said: It does show though that when it comes to business - orgs aren’t sentimental at all. I understand the lack of sympathy for James. But we shouldn’t ever blame a player for holding out for top dollar, or exercising their rights under the CBA even when it’s unpopular with fans - it’s just business. When the shoe’s on the other foot, orgs act in a very similar fashion. Hamilton’s case underlines this. You’re right. Team isn’t wrong to do what they did - but still a big bummer for a guy like DH who, not only has a career threatening injury, but likely lost a full year of his rookie deal and guaranteed $. I just feel for the guy as it’s unlikely, given his caliber and the disposability of the position), that he’ll ever recoup it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRNA Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 18 minutes ago, bMiller031 said: You’re right. Team isn’t wrong to do what they did - but still a big bummer for a guy like DH who, not only has a career threatening injury, but likely lost a full year of his rookie deal and guaranteed $. I just feel for the guy as it’s unlikely, given his caliber and the disposability of the position), that he’ll ever recoup it Realistically he's probably done. There's just too many FA WR's at his skill level. He is an extremely sharp kid though and am sure he's planned for life after football. Honors graduate, and all. What a great head start he has. Only 26 and already earned $2.9 million. He's a good kid and I'm sure he'll do well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutler06 Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) Not only signed by the Ravens, I heard that he's filed a $15M grievance against the Broncos, claiming he was working out with fellow Broncos while he got hurt, his "intent" was to comply with team wishes to work out for the upcoming season. Bet the league is going to give the Broncos all the legal support they need on this one else it'll set a terrible precedent going forward Edited June 7, 2021 by Cutler06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.