This has no bearing on the argument just an observation about Dumerville. If he had in fact agreed to a deal why couldn't he just resign after he was cut.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Dead money is a salary cap charge for a player that is no longer on a team’s roster. It is a by-product of the various salary components of an NFL contract being accounted for differently under the salary cap...

When a player is released or traded, the remaining proration of the salary components that are treated like a signing bonus immediately accelerate into his team’s current salary cap

nationalfootballpost  wrote:

This has no bearing on the argument just an observation about Dumerville. If he had in fact agreed to a deal why couldn't he just resign after he was cut. Players do it all the time and it seems that he understood it wasn't the Broncos who wanted to cut him. It was his agents fault and he fired his agent right. He was cut and free to sign with anyone, he didn't have to clear waivers.

To me it sounds like Elvis never wanted to play for the Broncos and cooked up a scheme in which he gets to leave and make his agent look like the bad guy. He agreed to a deal, decided he changed his mind but didn't want to look like a prick and back out so he cooked up this scheme. Unless I am wrong about the details it vaults good old Elvis to the top of my world class pricks list. Even if he wan't in on it which he made it look like by firing his agent he still could have honored his agreement and signed with the Broncos.

Sorry for the detour

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

I think because (don't want to be called a lier)...

Because after signing free agents they had 0.5 million in free cap space, and they were working with his 12 million contract. Combined that's 12.5 million they're working with.

After cutting him, 8 of the 12 million went to the free cap space and 4 million when to "dead money" (which teams can't use).

So before getting cut they had 12.5 million between free cap space and his contract and after cutting him they had 8.5 million between the two. The 4 million difference went to dead money (which again teams can't use).

Since they were working with less between the two, they couldn't offer Dummerville as much as they did beforehand... (unless they cut or reworked deals with other players, which might just ass more dead money, and that didn't go so well with Dumerville.).

How dead money works can be hard to try to explain... so here is an article.

Originally Posted by: beast 

The Broncos could've resigned him after this gaffe and tried but were beaten by the only other offer he received.

This from SI.com explains it:

No matter where Dumervil winds up next, this will go down as one of the most bizarre situations in NFL free agency history. One thing we do know: Because of nearly $5 million, Dumervil-related hit already on the Broncos' books for 2013, it's extremely unlikely that they will be able to re-sign Dumervil now.


Cutting him accelerated nearly 5 million to their cap. So, this proves they didn't want this to happen. For further proof they didn't want to get rid of him, they tried to resign him. Elway said they gave him a good offer but he went with Baltimore's instead. Baltimore wasn't a negative 5 million like Denver so they had a much easier task coming up with a contract Elvis would be interested in.

The idea that Dumervil wanted to be released is plausible... he would know that this would cause him to become a free agent . Where that breaks down, for me, is his agent would've knowingly been complicit in trying to make him a FA by screwing with paperwork's timing. Marty Magid was fired immediately after this situation went down so I don't think this was the wish of Dumervil to be cut. Plus, the Broncos tried arguing that a verbal agreement was in place and should be binding to them retaining his services. Their argument wasn't accepted and Elvis was a FA. Too much happened around this that makes me believe this wasn't what Elvis wanted.

This situation is not without precedent. Terrell Owens went through something semi similar with SF. His agent David Joseph, whom I had a relationship with (non sexual), [grin1] apparently lost T.O. a chance to become a FA by allegedly not sending paperwork in on time voiding his deal with the Niners. Ultimately, David was vindicated after going through a tough time and then T.O. moved on to Rosenhaus. What a mess that was.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

This explanation and the one beast provided makes sense. I take back what I said about Elvis not wanting to play for the Broncos. It seems that he was willing but after the accelerated cap hit and other details the deal they had agreed to wouldn't work. My apologies to Elvis (I'm sure he is reading this right now) for casting aspersions on his intentions.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Our approach is non-aggressive toward winning it all and all about long term stability in having a chance. Some of you are on record saying that's what you favor. I favor an all out assault at WINNING IT ALL. Denver is doing that this year despite you not realizing it. Soon our long term stability model will go by the wayside when Aaron is done. You will regret, as a fan, that your GM didn't go for it more with the greatest of all time while we had him. You'll see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

The Packers were demolished by NYG after their 15-1 season and the following draft was 6 straight defensive picks. They get blown out by Kaep in the playoffs the next year and respond by flying to Texas A&M and drafting Datone who was viewed to be one of the best read option options at DE.

Treading lightly in FA does not mean the team is opposed to winning it all or isn't aggressive, just a different approach. You've looked down your nose at the stability model, but the 2010 Packers show why that can work. We've established in this thread that the Packers, with a depleted squad limping to the playoffs, were relatively close to beating the 49ers.

You've also attributed some of the Packers' 2010 run to luck (Bears' QB, Desmond clip) but did the Seahawks not get lucky that the Bowman play was not a fumble, or that Kaep was within inches of throwing a TD vs. a pick to Sherman?

You need luck, health, and depth to win. If Ward or Peyton go down, how good do the Broncos look not only this year, but when they get clobbered by the looming salary cap ramifications of their all in approach? Ted has given set up the Packers so on any given year, such as 2010, they can win it, but that does not mean they're settling or content with mediocrity.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

Does anyone here honestly believe our D is going to be anywhere near a Top 10 D and would put a substantial amount of money on it that they will? Would anyone bet a substantial sum that the Packers win a playoff game this year. You can count me out on both.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I think if the defense is the cause of another early exit of the playoffs, Dom Capers and his toupee will be blown out of town. We had a topic that stated the defense was being molded to how Capers has wanted it (some rightfully questioned why now and not earlier) and basically that means he will not have any excuses, nor will the Packers.

That being said, it is not Ted Thompson who decides what coordinators are kept under contract. That is Mike McCarthy's responsibility. This topic is about Ted Thompson and his contract extension. He has earned an extension. 3 years with a 5% raise.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool