Exploring the Overlooked Reason Broncos Declined Garett Bolles' Fifth-Year Option
One of the most debated players on the Denver Broncos' roster is now the center of a situation that is generating discussion, and not necessarily related to his play on the field.
The Broncos declined the fifth-year option on left tackle Garett Bolles's rookie contract this past Friday, which means he will become an unrestricted free agent after the 2020 season.
The team has already declared that Bolles will be competing with offensive tackle Elijah Wilkinson — who has played right tackle and guard for most of his time with the team — for the starting left tackle job.
It's enough to make some wonder why the Broncos didn't address the offensive tackel position in free agency or the draft. For others, they wonder why the Broncos wouldn't exercise the option, considering that multiple OTs have been paid a considerable sum in recent extensions.
Personally, I favored exercising the option. But after the Broncos decided against it, I thought about it some more and there may be a reason to the Broncos' methods — a reason that doesn't mean the team is guaranteed to move on after the 2020 season.
Before I get to that, let's address why the Broncos didn't explore other options for an OT.
The Draft
I previously discussed what I would be comfortable with the Broncos giving up if they wanted to move up the board in the 2020 draft. Setting aside the fact the draft is over, let's consider why the Broncos didn't move up the board in the first round.
After the Giants selected Andrew Thomas No. 4 overall, then the Chargers and Cardinals — both teams in need of OT help — passed on that position for other needs, the remaining top OT prospects slid down the board.
When all three were there when the Browns selected at No. 10 overall, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Browns turned down offers to move down the board. Why would Cleveland do that when they have their pick of three top OT prospects?
The same thing was possible with the Jets at No. 11 overall. When New York had its choice of either Mehki Becton or Tristan Wirfs, it may have been less inclined to move down the board. That brings us to the Niners, who swapped spots with Tampa Bay so the Buccaneers could select Wirfs.
There were reports that the Dolphins tried to move up the board for Wirfs. If that was the case, that would have driven the price up. Thus, moving two spots up the board might have come at a much higher price than was worth paying.
The Bucs gave up a fourth-round pick to move one spot, so it's likely the Broncos would have to give up a third-round pick to swap spots with the Niners. While I was fine with giving up two thirds to move to No. 10 overall — and some might argue that's a bit high — a third-round pick to move just two spots up the board is more than I would give up.
I suspect GM John Elway felt the same way, whether it came to OTs, wide receivers or any other position. And despite reports that Elway tried to move up the board for other players later on that didn't pan out, I believe the GM wasn't willing to go 'all in' on a move up the board for a player.
So why not draft an OT later? That's likely because Elway and the coaching staff didn't think a player available later was an immediate upgrade over Bolles. In the first three rounds, it looked like Elway wanted to emphasize players who would contribute right away, rather than sit on the bench to develop.
In Denver's five top-100 selections, DL McTelvin Agim is the only player I would say will be considered a player to develop — and even then, he might find his way into the lineup the way Dre'Mont Jones last season. The others are likely to be heavily involved early on.
Given the way the draft board fell, Elway likely decided it was better to look elsewhere than OT.
Free Agency
We know that Elway passed on signing OT help early in free agency and targeted the interior O-line instead with the acquisition of Graham Glasgow. And with the draft in the books, Elway hasn't looked at other free-agent options for the O-line thus far.
Jason Peters is still available, but to repeat a point I've made elsewhere, chances are he will want to be the starter. He's also a short-term option at best, given his age (38). It doesn't appear that Elway is interested in signing a replacement if he's just going to be a short-term guy. And considering the Eagles still want to bring him back, Peters might not be available, anyway.
While it would make sense to consider other options, the ones I've advocated for are players who would be competing for a job, such as Kelvin Beachum and Cameron Erving. Beachum has experience at both left and right tackle and has worked with Mike Munchak in the past. Erving would be a good depth player and has experience at multiple positions.
And that brings me to where the bigger concern at OT lies, and that's at right tackle. While Ja'Wuan James is better than Bolles from a talent and polish standpoint, when it comes to availability, Bolles is the far better player.
When it comes to free agency, it's better to look at options who can play right tackle, so you have some peace of mind in case James misses time. Of course, that helps if Bolles were to miss time, too.
The Fifth-Year Option and Other Factors
Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports
Bolles' fifth-year option was reported to be a little more than $11 million, per Joel Corry of CBS Sports. The money was injury-only guaranteed, meaning Bolles could be cut for skill or cap reasons, but not health reasons.
Bolles, of course, has never missed a start, but that doesn't guarantee that he won't miss time with injuries in 2020. Furthermore, go back to his rookie season and Bolles had an injury scare when he hurt his ankle in Week 2. He was back in the lineup a week later, never to miss a start, but it was enough to cause Broncos fans to hold their breath at the time.
However, the decision to decline the option may not be about worries over what happens if Bolles gets injured. Part of it seems to be the mindset the Broncos have about getting Bolles to step up his game and prove he's worthy of a second contract.
Consider what would happen if the Broncos picked up his fifth-year option and Bolles played well both in 2020 and 2021. He would warrant an extension for 2022, of course. However, he wouldn't be the only player in line for one that year.
I need only remind you that WR Courtland Sutton will be up for an extension in 2022, as well. The same will apply to LB Von Miller, though he might have to take less money if he wants to stay. But it's not just those two who would be eligible.
LB Alexander Johnson and RB Phillip Lindsay will be restricted free agents in 2021 and, barring a decline in their play in 2020, both will be tendered. But that means both would be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2022.
And that doesn't include Bradley Chubb, whose fifth-year option will come into play in 2022. Of course, the Broncos can exercise that without much thought if he keeps playing at a high level. But that's still a fair amount of money to set aside.
In other words, picking up Bolles' fifth-year option could have put the Broncos into a situation down the road in which the team would have to weigh extensions for him, Sutton, Johnson, Lindsay, and perhaps Miller, in the same offseason. That's a lot of decisions to make about starters or top contributors, figuring out who will be in line for a big payday.
Now let's look at 2021. I've already mentioned that Johnson and Lindsay are RFAs following this coming season, so those two are easy decisions to make as long as they keep playing well and stay healhty. That leaves unrestricted free agents who are likely to be allowed to test the market or not be brought back at all.
Todd Davis and Shelby Harris are two unrestricted free agents for 2021, but both were allowed to hit the open market the last time they were eligible and it's likely that will happen again. Brandon McManus and Mike Purcell are players who might be retained, but neither is a player to get a 'break the bank' type of deal.
Joe Jones and Jeremiah Attaochu are fine depth players, but that means they'll be treated as such. And players such as Jeff Heuerman and DeMarcus Walker might not even make the 2020 roster out of training camp.
The only pending UFA in 2021, besides Bolles, whom the Broncos might consider a priority to extend is, Elijah Wilkinson — and that's only if Wilkinson beats Bolles for the left tackle job and plays at a high level. If not, Wilkinson will be treated as a depth player and, thus, not a priority to extend.
It's true that Bolles could be in line for an average per year salary of $16M to $18M in 2021, but the same holds true for 2022 — and that range could go higher depending on free agency in 2021.
There are, in fact, reasons that made sense to decline Bolles' fifth-year option that didn't necessarily go back to his play on the field. It could also come down to players in line for future extensions and the Broncos wanting to make that decision sooner on Bolles, as opposed to waiting for a season in which he joins other players as potential priorities for extensions.
The Takeaway
The Broncos may have a method to their madness here. Elway, Fangio and Munchak all seem to have the same mindset that they want to light a fire under Bolles and get him to play at a higher level. And while I do think Bolles gets more grief than is sometimes deserved, I do see plenty of areas in which he can improve.
If he does that, the Broncos will likely reward him. But they can do so during an offseason in which they only need to prioritize his extension, while sticking to restricted free agents tenders for Johnson and Lindsay and letting others test the market.
The Broncos are going to have some tough decisions to make in 2022, as I've outlined, and if they had picked up Bolles' fifth-year option, that could have led to a situation in which those tough decisions increase.
It's true the Broncos will have to pay more than $11M in 2021 if Bolles plays well. But pick up the option and, if Bolles played well in 2020 and 2021, imagine the cost to pay Bolles in 2022.
Thus, the Broncos likely believe it's better to pay in 2021 when it's the only possible big-money decision, rather than add it to what may be multiple big-money decisions in 2022.
It's now up to Bolles to prove he's worthy of such an extension. Whatever the outcome there, know that while declining the fifth-year option may not be a decision you support, it does give the Broncos a chance to spread one extension decision to a year in which they don't have lots of extension priorities.
Follow Bob on Twitter @BobMorrisSports and @MileHighHuddle.
