If Broncos threatened to bench Russell Wilson without contract change, why didn't they?
The story of the week still has a couple of unanswered questions. Here's the most obvious one.
If the Broncos threatened to bench Russell Wilson without an adjustment to the vesting of his $37 million in 2025 injury guarantees, why didn't they?
Yes, they eventually did. With two games left. He started seven games after refusing the request to give the Broncos protection against the possibility that an injury suffered down the stretch would remove their flexibility when it comes to keeping him or cutting him before the fifth day of the 2024 league year, when the injury guarantee becomes a full guarantee. If he'd been injured to the point where he couldn't have passed a physical before the vesting date, the Broncos would not have been able to avoid the injury guarantee becoming a full guarantee.
The Broncos wanted to be able to play him for the rest of 2023, without the possibility of an injury tying their hands for 2025. (They already owe him $39 million for 2024.) So, if they truly threatened to bench him if he refused to alter the contract and he refused to alter the contract, why didn't they bench him?
It's possible they were bluffing. It's possible that it wasn't as overt a "threat" as Wilson and/or his agent interpreted it. It's possible that the involvement of the league and the NFL Players Association got the Broncos to back off, until the final two weeks of the season. (That's when the Raiders yanked Derek Carr in 2022, for the same reason.)
It's also possible that, as the Broncos kept winning, they were willing to let it ride with Mr. Let's Ride.
Regardless, if a threat to bench Wilson was made, the Broncos waited until the final two games to act on it. And if, as it appears, he'll be the backup to Jarrett Stidham and not the emergency option, there's still a chance he'll play.
That would increase the chances of Wilson getting injured — and which would drive up the likelihood of on-field awkwardness to 100 percent.
