It’s possible that last week’s benching of quarterback Russell Wilson was, in part, a test. If it was, it’s likely that Wilson failed.
The move was made. Coach Sean Payton explained that he was trying to give the offense a spark. From a business standpoint, the Broncos were able to keep Wilson healthy, preserving the team’s ability to decide after the season whether to keep him beyond March 18, when his 2025 salary of $37 million shifts from guaranteed for injury to fully guaranteed. (If Wilson would have had an injury that didn’t heal by March 18, their hands would have been tied.)
In the days after the move was made, things didn’t quiet down. Wilson told reporters he was threatened in late October with a benching if he didn’t change his contract. Someone leaked to reporters the letter from the NFL Players Association threatening legal action, if he refused to delay the vesting date of his 2025 guarantee.
It creates tension and turmoil and ugliness. Payton, a disciple of Bill Parcells, won’t look kindly on the effort to air out dirty laundry.
Which leads to another question. Will the manner in which things end between Wilson and the Broncos impact the interest of other teams in signing him? Old-school coaches won’t look kindly on a player launching a P.R. campaign after being benched. Old-school coaches definitely won’t react well to the notion that Wilson ran to the union the moment his team tried to create some financial flexibility, within the confines of his contract.
On the other hand, Wilson likely will be available for a one-year, $1.21 million contract, with the Broncos paying the balance. That kind of a bargain could make another team far more likely to look the other way on whatever ugliness has happened or will happen between the Broncos and Wilson.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether other teams believe he can play at a high level. Good quarterbacks are hard to find. If a good quarterback can be gotten for only $1.21 million, nothing else matters.
