SectionC3

For what it's worth, the league would have a better argument if the clause read something like "Any player who is designated a Franchise Player shall have until 12:00 p.m. on July 15 to sign a multiyear contract . . . ." The fact that it doesn't read that way supports the idea that the clause is meant to apply to the franchising team, not to the player.

Sure those outlets have lawyers. But did they contribute to the story? And, for what it's worth, you still haven't contradicted my point about the ambiguity of the clause. Finally - maybe, just maybe, it would behoove players to get sharp lawyers for agents as opposed to the knuckleheads a lot of them tend to hire. Drew Rosenhaus might seem like a putz, but look at what he did for Antonio Brown on the helmet issue. He thought of things that nobody else bothered to explore under the CBA, and he kept the issue alive for his client for a lot longer than most would have expected.

Probably written by a sports journalist, not a lawyer. To be taken with a grain of salt. Read the first sentence in this clause. I'm not saying it's dispositive, just "gray" - it looks to me like the prohibition against post-July 15 extensions could apply only to the franchising team. What makes it "gray" is the last clause of the paragraph. The question is whether the first clause (or anything else in the CBA, which I haven't bothered to and won't read) changes the interpretation of this language. With respect to your underlined language, Clowney isn't under contract and therefore is free to negotiate as he sees fit. Not sure how the penalty language would apply to a team to which he is traded if the conversations occur prior to the signing of the franchise tender. *** Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year.

I'm not completely sure about that. The CBA appears to be "gray" on that point. In my reading the July 15 clause pertains only to the relationship between the player and the "original" club - meaning that the player can't sign anything other than the franchise tender with the franchising club beyond July 15. If, however, the player lands on another roster, then it doesn't look like the prohibition against an extension, etc., would apply to the player's relationship with his new club. Maybe it's been arbitrated and a result contrary to my interpretation was reached - I don't have enough concern to look it up. But I'm not convinced that Clowney couldn't sign long-term with a team other than the Texans to the extent he is traded while on his franchise tender. EDIT: There also could be language elsewhere in the CBA pertinent to this point. I read one paragraph somewhere b/w pages 44 and 51. So to get a clear answer on this somebody would have to read the entire CBA (I assume there's an integration clause in the compact) and check any arbitration decisions on the topic.

No, it's not wrong. He doesn't sign the tender without a destination in place. Houston can't trade him unless he agrees on the destination. And he won't agree on the new destination until, as noted, he "agrees to terms" with a new team - which is different from signing.

Yes he does control his destination. He doesn't get traded until he agrees to terms with a new team. Or, I suppose he could sign the tender and get flipped thereafter. But there's more value for him and for the Texans if he's moved with a contract in place. He will not be a one-and-done player for his new team. The thing I haven't seen mentioned is that we recently hired the former Texans GM, who is big Clowney backer and who theoretically knows Clowney's financial goals and the trade market for Clowney as of a little before the draft IIRC. We should have the inside track on this player.

I can't see them keeping Yeldon over DiMarco simply b/c of ST. Kroft lives near me and he was rolling around on one of those knee scooters until just before camp. I'm not sure how to put this but . . . he didn't exactly look like an NFL player to me when I last saw him. I think conditioning might be/might have been an issue with the foot, and the uneducated guess here is that he starts the year on PUP.

Normally I would agree with you on TE/WR not being linked, but this year with the Kroft situation they might keep for a month a 7th WR who might have a little upside instead of a 4th TE who JAG.

I think you're probably right about that. I'm wondering if the Spain injury isn't too bad if they don't try to sneak both Teller and Boettger to the PS and stash the ninth OL there. I don't like keeping 7 WR, either, but I wonder if they might until Kroft is ready to play.

Agreed. This guy is a real find, particularly given that he was acquired for someone who wasn't going to sniff the roster. Curious to see if they plug him in at G this Thursday. Might allow them to keep only 8 OL in spite of the injury bug.

I think you might be on to something with Foster's attitude. When breaking camp McDermott made a comment about liking the attitudes of "most" of the players. So apparently there's a couple of guys who are rubbing him the wrong way. I assume if they were JAGs they would have been gone by then. And I recall reading camp reports of Foster moping when he was with the 2s. Putting aside the fact that Foster likely would get claimed on waivers, the problem with cutting him is that it removes a big chunk of our top-end speed at that position. We went through this last year - the "catch radius" and "hands" guys didn't work so well for Josh, but when we put more speed in the lineup (Foster, even Thompson) things opened up a lot for him. Cutting Foster leaves Brown as the only real burner. Not so sure that's a great idea. (I guess maybe McKenzie could fill that role, but I don't think he's been used like that.) If all that is true, maybe it comes down to Zay v Foster for the last spot. Zay earned hardest worker in the offseason, and it's going to be hard to cut a guy like that for an attitude problem. It's a dilemma for sure. Maybe they go light at RB and try to go with 7 WR for a couple of weeks to see how things shake out. On that point, I think we may end up keeping 9 OL with the way Bates has played and the nagging injuries at that position in camp, which makes it tough to get a 7th WR on the roster. Figure 2QB, 3TE (Sweeney, Knox, Smith; Kroft to PUP), 9 OL (Dawkins, Spain, Morse, Long, Ford, Nyseke, Feliciano, Bates, Teller/Boettger), 4 RB (McCoy, Gore, Singletary, DiMarco), and then maybe it could be justified until Kroft returns. I don't know that we need Yeldon -- to me Singletary makes him redundant. Perry is a different matter - not sure who's going to play teams. On the other hand, covering kicks isn't as important as it used to be. No matter, it's a tough call.

Yup. Covered the tackle and took more than one full step off the LOS before initiating contact. It was the right call.

This. Daboll wants quickness and speed in the slot. We saw that last year after the bye. I think Zay is in trouble, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t bring him to camp. Based on the collection of WRs, I wonder if DiMarco/TE3 might be in trouble. I realize that the plan is to be flexible on the offensive side of the ball, but stacking speed in the slot works well for Allen. Might not need to go four deep with that type of player.

Outstanding! (But I consider John Brown a hero )

Yup. The incompletion on first down was ridiculous.

He’s a fumbler. He proved it this year.

Good point. I hadn’t thought about June 1, was just working in the idea that they want to bubble wrap him so they can get rid if him after the year. I guess they could rid themselves of him now, unless they don’t want to fire someone during Christmas week.

Clay inactive. Wow. Was he on the injury report this week? I wonder if they're keeping him healthy so they can cut him on the first day of the new league year.

As a matter of fact, I do think Daboll is bringing the kid along properly. Let’s start with the offensive design. Daboll does stuff that makes it easy for Allen. The kid is comfortable on his feet, so what do we do? Spread the field and give him a little room to roam. The yardage isn’t by accident. Watch the all-22 when it comes out on the run that Allen ended with a slide at the +30. Daboll takes a heavy package with 2TE and a FB, splits everyone out, moves the LBs to the edges of the field, and allows Allen to break of 20+ without anyone laying a finger on him. That option went away when the Jets countered by feigning the A-gap blitzes in the second half. Let’s walk back to the Jacksonville game, too. That’s a big, nasty defense. So what does Daboll do? Tight splits, condense the field toward the middle, and give the kid a little room on the outside to roam and to throw on roll outs. Play action is a young QB’s best friend. While we’ve gone away from that the last couple of games, we’ve done a healthy amount of that with “levels” concepts mixed in. To top it off, the kid doesn’t make the same mistakes twice. It’s a sign of good coaching. Remember the big shot on the left thigh he took against Jacksonville? This week he’s sliding to end runs with his feet up to protect himself. The kid also looks a lot more comfortable in the pocket — which is a reflection of the fact that he’s starting to understand what happens around him. There’s a long way to go, but the “eye test” on the kid is light years beyond where it was early in the season. So yes, while he’s a work in progress I do think he’s being brought along properly. And now I’ll turn it around on you - you’re entitled to your opinion that Daboll is “fluff,” but I’d like to hear your list of candidates of substance to fill HC openings where the principal task is to develop a young QB. I’ll put the Jets, the Jags, the Browns, and perhaps even the Cardinals, the Ravens, and the Redskins (assuming Smith is done) on that list.

Hes not related to those guys (insofar as I know). So it’s not nepotism. Much as beane is here bc of a connection to McDermott, not because of nepotism.

Of course daboll isn’t the best oc in the Division. It’s mcdaniels all day long. And, for what it’s worth, I never characterized daboll that way. But you still haven’t addressed the point that daboll will be an attractive candidate for an HC job because he is a bright offensive mind who can “raise” a young QB properly.

It was the right call to try that kick. Wind was strong that direction. The long attempt after hauschka was hurt was ridiculous. Hauschka couldn’t even get close to that range in warming up before the second half.

Four points: 1. I said he well could be a candidate, not that he would get the job. 2. I didn’t come up with the “grassy knoll” thing. I suppose this is subjective, but that reply isn’t funny or even comprehensible. Better said, it was dumb. 3. Who made what a powerhouse is immaterial. The point remains that HC candidates who show the ability to develop a young QB will be at a premium as soon as this offseason given the number of younger QBs coming into the league. 4. Working for saban and belichick isn’t merely paper pedigree. They don’t suffer fools and he’s shown that he can hack it with the best.

That’s about right. Home sidelines. The seats we were in are now dugout suites.

Sitting in section c3 w dad and brother. Ticket stubs are framed w a copy of the front page of the buffalo news signed by Reich and Christie thanking my dad for attending. It’s a cool thing. Probably the only one still up in my parents’ house.