Broncos Bench Russell Wilson

[dolphins4life]

I don't know why you'd bench your starting quarterback when you are not out of the playoff race yet.

Christmas Eve was not his fault.  He rallied them from behind.

Talk about second guessing.  If they had won that game, they'd have a realistic chance of tying KC for the division lead next week.

[Dave Gray]

It's about money.  Wilson's contract was always terrible.  They paid top QB money for a guy who needs more support than they can now afford to give him.  By not starting him the last couple of weeks, it gives them financial flexibility, as per their contract agreement.

The Broncos are ESSENTIALLY eliminated from the playoffs.  They don't control their own destiny and they need to jump 5 teams to even get into the 7th spot.  It ain't happening.

[masterfins]

Sean Payton is not as good as he thinks he is, he's Bill Belichick Lite; neither very good without an all-star QB.  Payton started off throwing shade against the prior coach and started off with losses.  He's been anti-Wilson since before the season, and what he's done is deplorable.  I guarantee there are many FA's that are not going to want to go play for the Bronco's the way he has treated Wilson.  Yeah the Bronco's overpaid Wilson, but you don't fix that by disrespecting Wilson in the media.  By the way it's not the offense that is giving up all those points, and Wilson has actually been playing better.  Wilson is still guaranteed like $38M next year, so he's going to get paid.

[Dave Gray]

I don't like the way Payton is doing it, by saying the next guy in line gives them the best chance to win.  We all know that he thinks that's bullshit and it's disingenuous.

However, I don't fault them for sitting Wilson if he doesn't negotiate.

Wilson's contract is poison and they need to be able to get out of whatever part of it they can.  They need that flexibility.  I don't blame Wilson for refusing if he doesn't want to -- I understand his side.  But this is a business and you can't throw good money after bad.

The villain of this story isn't Peyton; it's the GM who allowed this terrible deal in the first place.  It was doomed for failure.

[masterfins]

Well the NFLPA is going after the Broncos, and the NFL is looking into it, as they believe they are violating the collective bargaining agreement.

[Dave Gray]

I'm surprised to hear why.  It seems well within their choice.

[masterfins]

I'm surprised to hear why.  It seems well within their choice.

They threatened to bench him if he didn't rework his contract to remove guaranteed pay if injured, you can't do that.

[Dave Gray]

They threatened to bench him if he didn't rework his contract to remove guaranteed pay if injured, you can't do that.

Why not?

[masterfins]

^^^ It violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[Dave Gray]

How so?

Isn't it a coach's decision on who starts on gameday?  Guys are rested all the time to prevent injury.

[Spider-Dan]

Pretty sure it's a black-letter CBA violation to tell a player "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you."
If you want to cut him for not agreeing to reduce his pay, then fine: cut him.  But you can't bench players for not accepting a pay cut.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Pretty sure it's a black-letter CBA violation to tell a player "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you."
If you want to cut him for not agreeing to reduce his pay, then fine: cut him.  But you can't bench players for not accepting a pay cut.

What rule prohibits a coach from deciding who is or isn't active or inactive?   

[Spider-Dan]

Let me draw an analogy:

It is perfectly legal to publicly expose someone cheating on their spouse.
It is illegal extortion to tell that person, "Give me money or I will publicly expose you cheating on your spouse," and then, after they refuse to pay, publicly expose them cheating on their spouse.

You cannot tell a player, "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you," and then bench them after they refuse the pay cut.

[CF DolFan]

Let me draw an analogy:

It is perfectly legal to publicly expose someone cheating on their spouse.
It is illegal extortion to tell that person, "Give me money or I will publicly expose you cheating on your spouse," and then, after they refuse to pay, publicly expose them cheating on their spouse.

You cannot tell a player, "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you," and then bench them after they refuse the pay cut.

I don't think that is true for sports players in the same way no one gets arrested for punching someone else. Players get cut all the time for not reworking their contract. The only difference is it typically happens after the season.  For another reason a coach decides who plays for numerous reasons. no contract guarantees playing time.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Let me draw an analogy:

It is perfectly legal to publicly expose someone cheating on their spouse.
It is illegal extortion to tell that person, "Give me money or I will publicly expose you cheating on your spouse," and then, after they refuse to pay, publicly expose them cheating on their spouse.

You cannot tell a player, "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you," and then bench them after they refuse the pay cut.

If you are drawing analogies you are not talking black letter law.

Can your employee tell you to stay home, but we will pay you anyway? 

There is nothing in the CBA that prohibits this, if the NFLPA is as upset about this as you are they could negotiate a provision for the next CBA, but it would be a difficult provision to word in such without hampering a team’s ability to set their game day roster. 

He was paid for those games.