Rockroi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, sperry said: Gronk will get fucked by the franchise tag. Franchise tag is super low for tight ends, so they can force him into taking a below market deal by threatening him with the tag. Gronk is already under contract; they can't just decide to franchise him after he is under a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Rockroi said: Gronk is already under contract; they can't just decide to franchise him after he is under a contract. In perpetuity? Geez, didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Not perpetuity; there is a window when the player is still under contract but their contract will run out by a certain date (maybe March 15 or something like that); during that time the team can either a) work out a long-term deal or b ) attach the Franchise tag for a 1-year contract and usually that will be a short-term solution to creating a long-term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Oh... and then there is this: The Seahawks' best defensive player will be out for a few weeks to recover from knee surgery; If only somebody could have predicted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I just mean this kind of seems like a power move on The Hoodie's part. You don't want to play ball with us in terms of a reasonable contract? I can ship you off to The Factory of Sadness mid-season. On top of that, this doesn't make a lick of sense for the Browns, does it? The Browns have an ungodly amount of cap space and a shitty defense. Why wouldn't it make sense to trade for an impact player on defense who is only 27 for the price of a compensatory third rounder? They can afford to pay the guy and can front load the hell out of the contract. They also have a wealth of draft picks next year, so why not use one of them to trade for a guy who has already proven he can play? I mean, this is a pick that will be in the 97-100 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, briantw said: The Browns have an ungodly amount of cap space and a shitty defense. Why wouldn't it make sense to trade for an impact player on defense who is only 27 for the price of a compensatory third rounder? They can afford to pay the guy and can front load the hell out of the contract. They also have a wealth of draft picks next year, so why not use one of them to trade for a guy who has already proven he can play? I mean, this is a pick that will be in the 97-100 range. But can they sign him? If not, they are giving up a third rounder for half a season that is already lost. I guess they get that 3rd rounder back, but it won't be as high as the one they gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: But can they sign him? If not, they are giving up a third rounder for half a season that is already lost. I guess they get that 3rd rounder back, but it won't be as high as the one they gave up. They could just franchise him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, briantw said: They could just franchise him. I suppose, but is he really worthy of burning the tag? I don't know, seems like yet another "Browns" sort of move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I suppose, but is he really worthy of burning the tag? I don't know, seems like yet another "Browns" sort of move. He's a top ten rated player at his position and is 27. I'd say he's certainly worthy of a franchise tag if they can't come to a contract agreement. That said, I think they'll likely just end up negotiating a deal with him, as they have the money to pay him and wouldn't have traded for him if they weren't interested in doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, briantw said: He's a top ten rated player at his position and is 27. I'd say he's certainly worthy of a franchise tag if they can't come to a contract agreement. That said, I think they'll likely just end up negotiating a deal with him, as they have the money to pay him and wouldn't have traded for him if they weren't interested in doing just that. One major issue to remember here is that Belichick - in effect - released Collins. And while some players have had very productive careers off the Pats (Branch, Assante Samuel) Belichick has a knack for making sure big names do not drag down the rest of the team with unworkable salaries (Richard Seymour, Randy Moss, Derrell Revis, Logan Mankins). In other words, before a team starts shelling over huge cash to a "former" Pats player, they have to ask why the Pats let such a great player go. Now, fair point that briantw made - the Browns are something like $47 Million under the cap (lets all try to guess who has the LEAST amount of money under the cap... SPOILER ALERT its the fucking shitty Jets). If you wanted to build a defensive-minded team around a player, you could do a LOT worse than Jamie Collins... who has stated he wants "von Miller" money (5yr(s) / $114,500,000). If there is a team that can afford that ... well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Rock, I once hear Hoodie say that one of the best concepts he ever took from Bill Walsh was the idea that it's better to lose a player 1 year too early than 1 year too late. This to me seems like that kind of deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Rockroi said: One major issue to remember here is that Belichick - in effect - released Collins. And while some players have had very productive careers off the Pats (Branch, Assante Samuel) Belichick has a knack for making sure big names do not drag down the rest of the team with unworkable salaries (Richard Seymour, Randy Moss, Derrell Revis, Logan Mankins). In other words, before a team starts shelling over huge cash to a "former" Pats player, they have to ask why the Pats let such a great player go. Now, fair point that briantw made - the Browns are something like $47 Million under the cap (lets all try to guess who has the LEAST amount of money under the cap... SPOILER ALERT its the fucking shitty Jets). If you wanted to build a defensive-minded team around a player, you could do a LOT worse than Jamie Collins... who has stated he wants "von Miller" money (5yr(s) / $114,500,000). If there is a team that can afford that ... well... It's also very possible that the Browns will enter the draft with the number one pick and Myles Garrett, another guy you could use to build a defense around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, briantw said: It's also very possible that the Browns will enter the draft with the number one pick and Myles Garrett, another guy you could use to build a defense around. And there they have Garrett locked under the Rookie Salary cap and don't have to pay him much of anything; so you get two HUGE young players for 3-4 years and only have to, really, pay for one of them. 13 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Rock, I once hear Hoodie say that one of the best concepts he ever took from Bill Walsh was the idea that it's better to lose a player 1 year too early than 1 year too late. This to me seems like that kind of deal. This is a huge mantra of Darth Hoodie, or at the very least its the mantra of the media here constantly repeats. And its very true; I think the Pats must lead the NFL in "Buying low and selling high." At the same time, the Pats could have kept Collins for the remainder of the season, have him play and just not resign him. And for that time, remember: it would have been Collins' "contract year" and he would have or should have been playing "balls out." And that may have made this team unstoppable (then again Collins was only ... "good" on D). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Tonight's game feels like a trap game. I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 On 10/31/2016 at 2:41 PM, Tywin et al. said: Tonight's game feels like a trap game. I hope I'm wrong. Yeah, the Bears are definitely going to fall into the trap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 The Collins move makes zero sense. A 3rd round pick is a horrible return for a good player on a team with superbowl aspirations. Like mind numbingly awful. It's also a terrible trade for the Browns. Why are they trading draft picks for veterans? This is the trade that makes sense for neither side. RE: The Vikings game. Lost in the shuffle of the awful offensive performance by the Vikings is the fact that the Vikings D once again were completely dominant. Vikes easily win that game if they don't turn it over 4 times. Turner will figure out a way to protect Bradford's blindside with extra backs/tight ends, and they can gridn out a 17-6 win if it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Tonight's game feels like a trap game. I hope I'm wrong. Nah, you guys had that game last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 So, more from NFL.com on the Collins trade and they gave a bit of an explanation as to why the Pats MAY have gotten more from Collins by trading him than by letting him go: Quote We've seen it written in many places that the Patriots would have ended up with the same third-round compensatory pick if they had just held on to Collins. That's not necessarily true. The byzantine compensatory picks formula is complicated, but the key part here is that each team's entire list of free agents lost and gained is applied. As OvertheCap.com succinctly writes, "Any team that has more CFAs (compensatory free agents) lost than CFAs gained will then be eligible for compensatory picks for the CFAs lost that were not cancelled out by CFAs gained." In short: Collins leaving to sign elsewhere guaranteed nothing. If the Patriots signed more quality free agents than they lost in the offseason, they wouldn't get compensatory picks regardless of what happened with Collins. The compensatory pick for Collins also would have come in 2018, while the pick they acquired in the trade is for 2017 (Emphasis added). So, the Pats DID guarantee they would have gotten something; had they let Collins walk they would not have necessarily gotten anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, Rockroi said: So, more from NFL.com on the Collins trade and they gave a bit of an explanation as to why the Pats MAY have gotten more from Collins by trading him than by letting him go: (Emphasis added). So, the Pats DID guarantee they would have gotten something; had they let Collins walk they would not have necessarily gotten anything. Yeah, I was a bit dismayed when I saw the trade this morning, but the more information coming out seems that it does make some sense. Even with Belichicks track record, there are times it seems he really dropped the ball, but more often than not it seems to work out. I was a bit confused with Van Noy and Mingo, so I guess Bill saw this coming, and kept Collins up to the wire. Also, hearing some analysts say Elandon is gonna be really good. Hopefully it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 This FiveThirtyEight article and the one it links to confirm what I've observed about the last few New England games: their defense has actually been pretty mediocre. When ranking by yards allowed, they're 23rd in passing defense and 19th in rushing defense. Although (by some Sith trickery, no doubt) they've managed to keep arguably the only parameter that matters -- the number of points scored against them -- quite low, Darth Hoodie has to know he cannot count on that in the playoffs nor can he count on continuing to score 34 points per game (which is what they've had since the return of Brady). Thus, some kind of changes in the Patriot defense are practically inevitable. I'm not sure how getting rid of one of the best defensive players is helping matters, but Darth Hoodie probably some has plan that will only become apparent in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.