Teams utilizing "unfair" franchise tag! official thread

[Dawgg]

I listened to the press conference and it was absolutely embarassing listening to the general manager of an NFL franchise describe using the franchise tag twice as "unfair." Are you kidding me?

 

What is "truly" unfair is allowing one of your most valuable assets to walk with no compensation.

 

 

Franchise tag, "fair" or "unfair"?

[generaLee83]

I listened to the press conference and it was absolutely embarassing listening to the general manager of an NFL franchise describe using the franchise tag twice as "unfair." Are you kidding me?

 

I agree, it's pretty disgusting that he said that, it was more troubling that he seemed to have a hard time understanding how the tag worked, I'm a complete moron and I understand the franchise tag.

 

And as for him not being aware of Willis' remarks about moving the team to Toronto, hey Marv, where the hell have you been for the last 2 months?

 

I hope he was lying because if he really never came into contact with that information or someone else who read that information then he must live underneath the stadium in a cave.

 

Geico, so easy a Marv can do it.

[Rayzer32]

And Tim Hortons blows DD away.

[generaLee83]

And Tim Hortons blows DD away.

 

 

hahah, I still haven't made it a Tim Hortons yet, this year that will change.

[Gordio]

Well, you see the problem is NEXT year our best WR and QB are BOTH free agents so we have to use that guaranteed successful #1 pick on one of those THIS year so we can replace the other one NEXT year. Personally, I think we need more pitching.

 

 

Neither one of them is a free agent next year. Why dont you get your facts straight before you start shooting your mouth of about this doom & gloom crap because we are not willing to give a guy a 20 mill signing bonus to a CB who was pretty much horrible in 05 & played decent for 1/2 a season this past year.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Well, you see the problem is NEXT year our best WR and QB are BOTH free agents so we have to use that guaranteed successful #1 pick on one of those THIS year so we can replace the other one NEXT year. Personally, I think we need more pitching.

 

It doesn't work like that for all positions. WR and QB have steeper learning curves, so it makes sense to re-sign free agents at those positions, as you can't get a perfect substitute in the draft. CB is a position where a player can come in from day #1 and excel. Indeed, we probably shouldn't re-sign Clements BECAUSE Evans and Losman are going to have to be re-signed to big deals soon.

 

I think we'll be fine. We let Thomas Smith, Burris, Winfield so and got pretty good replacements.

[bobblehead]

Dunkin Donuts' coffee tastes like !@#$.

 

And all you fat fugs that go to the East Ave DD in Rochester, quit blocking the street in the morning, try mixing in a salad or two.

[apuszczalowski]

Maybe, Just Maybe, the braintrust at OBD has examined the situation, and know that they need to vastly improve the run defence to win games, and if it means taking a hit on the pass defence by letting a CB go and replacing him with a cheaper alternative (in a defence that doesn't require a CB late Nate to be successful), they are willing to spend that money elsewhere. If letting Nate go means the Bills will be able to stop the run better, I'm all for it. As for taging him again, Marv is right, it really isn't fair (doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if necessary) but he also gave his word that he wouldn't do it. I doubt Nate would play this year if that happened and would definitly not give 100% if he did play because he would be pissed that they are nopt negotiating a long term deal. He may be more willing now to give a bit of a hometown discout to the Bills because of what Marv did.

 

How can people look at this so negatively? even Bill can see that most of what he said was good (need to improve the lines first) and if it wasn't for Bills crazy fear of the Bills only drafting DB's with their first picks all the time, he'd probably be predicting a SB victory next year. Instead everyone is crying because Marv says he doesn't fully understand the Salary cap (something he was not hired to understand, and He didn't comment on Willis and said he never heard Willis's Comments. What were people expecting if he did hear the comments, him to bring out Willis during the PC and have a public Lynching?

[Ozymandius]

The only thing worse than getting run on at 5 yards a pop is if you stop teams on first and second down but give up the third down completion to move the chain. That's demoralizing. Yes, we need to get better running the ball and stopping the run, but it'd be nice to be able to do so while maintaining strengths in other areas. Why plug one hole at the expense of opening another?

[apuszczalowski]

The only thing worse than getting run on at 5 yards a pop is if you stop teams on first and second down but give up the third down completion to move the chain. That's demoralizing. Yes, we need to get better running the ball and stopping the run, but it'd be nice to be able to do so while maintaining strengths in other areas. Why plug one hole at the expense of opening another?

But will keeping Nate Clements handcuff the team even more while trying to fix the run D?

 

How effective will the highest payed CB in the league be when all teams do is run the ball against us?

 

A Tampa 2 defence does not need a top CB to be effective, just look at the rest of the teams using this type and you won't find a Nate Clements in their backfield. It would be a luxury to keep him after tying alot of resources up financially to keep him. I'd much rather take a slight hit to the pass defence if it meant the run D would be better.

 

The Biggest mistake Marv made was not trading Nate away last season while he was still under contract so the Bills won't be letting him go for nothing

[Ozymandius]

The biggest mistake Marv made was agreeing to not franchise him.

 

Anyway, it's doubtful that the hit to the pass defense is going to be "very slight", and it's questionable whether the Bills can get the defensive linemen they need to get the Tampa-2 to work like other teams. We'll see, but the concerns are very real at this point.

[apuszczalowski]

The biggest mistake Marv made was agreeing to not franchise him.

 

Anyway, it's doubtful that the hit to the pass defense is going to be "very slight", and it's questionable whether the Bills can get the defensive linemen they need to get the Tampa-2 to work like other teams. We'll see, but the concerns are very real at this point.

See, I disagree that the hit of losing Clements will be as drastic as everyone says. Sure there may be a bit of a drop off, but with a decent replacement, I think that it will be OK

 

And promising to not Franchise Nate was a good deal because otherwise, he would not have been playing last year. Marv gave Nate what he wanted in order to possibly get Nate to consider signing with Buffalo this offseason. What Should have been done is after Nate Signed the tag agreement, They should have talked about the future plans and tryed to get whatever they could at the deadline for him if he wasn't going to come back and test FA, so that the Bills wouldn't be left with nthing when he left.

[Kelly the Dog]

See, I disagree that the hit of losing Clements will be as drastic as everyone says. Sure there may be a bit of a drop off, but with a decent replacement, I think that it will be OK

 

And promising to not Franchise Nate was a good deal because otherwise, he would not have been playing last year. Marv gave Nate what he wanted in order to possibly get Nate to consider signing with Buffalo this offseason. What Should have been done is after Nate Signed the tag agreement, They should have talked about the future plans and tryed to get whatever they could at the deadline for him if he wasn't going to come back and test FA, so that the Bills wouldn't be left with nthing when he left.

Of course Nate would have played last year. How many players have actually sat out in the last several years? None? One? If he didn't play, he and Rosenhaus know they would be losing tens of millions on the long term deal. There was no good reason for Marv to do it, except that he was trying to engender a new attitude after the TD years. IMO he could have easily done that without making the deal with Nate.

[Dawgg]

This is absolutely wrong.

 

I am willing to put Marv on a pedestal for all he has done for this franchise, but this was a colossal mistake. Eliminating the option for a franchise tag essentially eliminated any chance of leverage this team had in his contract situation. If Nate were to hold out, he would be forfeting his salary -- something he would do for some time, but would eventually have to come back and play. In the absolute worst case, if Nate refused to play period, the Bills still retain the rights of the number 1 free agent on the market and can look into trade possibilities. In the best case, Nate and his agent feel it is in their best interest to come to the able and negotiate a long-term deal with the Bills to ensure financial security rather than play an additional year on a 1-year deal and risk injury.

 

This decision was plain stupid, no matter what you apologists say. Add to it Marv's humiliating press conference... when asked why he made such a dumb move, his response was that it would be "unfair." This business was never fair to begin with and if he doesn't realize that, he's not cut out to be a GM.

 

And promising to not Franchise Nate was a good deal because otherwise, he would not have been playing last year.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Of course Nate would have played last year. How many players have actually sat out in the last several years? None? One? If he didn't play, he and Rosenhaus know they would be losing tens of millions on the long term deal. There was no good reason for Marv to do it, except that he was trying to engender a new attitude after the TD years. IMO he could have easily done that without making the deal with Nate.

 

I think that's exactly why he did--to engender a new attitude. There would be nothing worse for morale and credibility than getting into an extended hold out with one of the best players on the team. Marv had to sell him and Jauron to the team--and I think the promise to Nate was part of that sale job.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think that's exactly why he did--to engender a new attitude. There would be nothing worse for morale and credibility than getting into an extended hold out with one of the best players on the team. Marv had to sell him and Jauron to the team--and I think the promise to Nate was part of that sale job.

But there was nothing to believe that Nate was going to hold out. I don't think he ever mentioned it. I do think he always said how much he likes Buffalo. He would have loved Jauron, as all players do. He might not have loved the fact that he was franchised but he surely knew it was coming. And he made a huge jump in salary. IMO there was virtually no chance that Nate would not be playing in the last pre-season game, and perhaps all of them, and starting game one of the regular season. He had no incentive to sit out, he wasn't even coming off a good year. Again, Marv could have done all his good will changing just being Marv (with Jauron) and not being TD (with Meathead or Greggo).

[BADOLBILZ]

It doesn't work like that for all positions. WR and QB have steeper learning curves, so it makes sense to re-sign free agents at those positions, as you can't get a perfect substitute in the draft. CB is a position where a player can come in from day #1 and excel. Indeed, we probably shouldn't re-sign Clements BECAUSE Evans and Losman are going to have to be re-signed to big deals soon.

 

I think we'll be fine. We let Thomas Smith, Burris, Winfield so and got pretty good replacements.

 

CB may be a position that can come in and play well, but again, this isn't moneyball. You have to hit those picks because you don't have 32 rounds in the draft and 4 teams worth of developmental players in the minors to hope on. Quentin Jammer happens. Mike Rumph happens. The 12th pick in this years draft is probably going to get near $10M in guaranteed money and won't have peed a drop. But give Clements an 8 figure bonus? Preposterous!

 

It was easy to replace Burris because we had Smith, it was easy to replace Smith because we had Winfield and it was easy to replace Winfield because we had Clements. But easy is relative. Smith, Burris and Winfield did not make plays and their defenses did not get turnovers in great part because it it. It got so bad with Smith that teams began attacking him because they knew the WORST that could happen was that he could knock it down. Clements is a far more effective player than any of those guys.

[apuszczalowski]

CB may be a position that can come in and play well, but again, this isn't moneyball. You have to hit those picks because you don't have 32 rounds in the draft and 4 teams worth of developmental players in the minors to hope on. Quentin Jammer happens. Mike Rumph happens. The 12th pick in this years draft is probably going to get near $10M in guaranteed money and won't have peed a drop. But give Clements an 8 figure bonus? Preposterous!

 

It was easy to replace Burris because we had Smith, it was easy to replace Smith because we had Winfield and it was easy to replace Winfield because we had Clements. But easy is relative. Smith, Burris and Winfield did not make plays and their defenses did not get turnovers in great part because it it. It got so bad with Smith that teams began attacking him because they knew the WORST that could happen was that he could knock it down. Clements is a far more effective player than any of those guys.

And Clements was a turnover machine in Buffalo this year????

 

I really doubt the #12 pick is going to get 10 mil guaranteed. I don't even think Donte got that last year (although I could be wrong). If the #12 does get that, he would be getting that anyway weither Nates here or not and usually its determined by what others around him got and the previous years deals to picks.No one the Bills sign is going to get an 8 figure signing bonus because that is 1/3 of what they are going to spend this year. Clements is far more effective when he wants to be and has something to play for, thats why last year he didn't turn it on until the second half of the year.

 

Face it, Clements is gone, get over it, it will make your life much easier

[Bill from NYC]

Face it, Clements is gone, get over it, it will make your life much easier

 

I think that most posters are resigned to the fact that Nate is gone. Liking the decision, or the idiotic "promise" that sealed the deal are altogether different issues.

 

I am NOT trying to be confrontational here, OK.....but can you tell me how long you will happily accept the 1st round cornerback revolving door? We continue to use our top draft selections on defensive backs only to see them walk away the minute they can, and are left to wonder why we have serious, long term problems blocking and stopping the run, or so it seems.

 

We will find out soon enough if Marv meant what he said about the needs of the Bills.

 

PS: I still think that we should franchise Fletcher and re-sign Kelsay with 39 million dollars (and more to arrive) cap space.

[apuszczalowski]

I think that most posters are resigned to the fact that Nate is gone. Liking the decision, or the idiotic "promise" that sealed the deal are altogether different issues.

 

I am NOT trying to be confrontational here, OK.....but can you tell me how long you will happily accept the 1st round cornerback revolving door? We continue to use our top draft selections on defensive backs only to see them walk away the minute they can, and are left to wonder why we have serious, long term problems blocking and stopping the run, or so it seems.

 

We will find out soon enough if Marv meant what he said about the needs of the Bills.

 

PS: I still think that we should franchise Fletcher and re-sign Kelsay with 39 million dollars (and more to arrive) cap space.

Its ok, I respect your opinion on here, you seem to be in the 5% of people that actually know their stuff, but I don't see this as just a "we're letting him go because he is too expensive even though it will destroy our defence" like 90% of the people here are saying. I think it is more of a "we'd like to keep him, but at his price it would affect our ability to fix areas of need, and having a CB of his caliber is more of a luxury then a necessity in this defence"

 

As good of a player/person Fletcher is, i don't see him staying around or getting franchised.I don't think the team sees him as their option for MLB because of his size and that many of his tackles are downfield rather then at the LOS like the MLB in a Tampa 2 defence is supposed to make, but I can see them trying to lock Kelsay up before he becomes a FA

 

 

I might see it as being more of a problem if this was a top (or close to top) ranked defence that only needs 1-2 more to go over the top

 

As for the cornerback revolving door, I don't see it as being the huge issue you have made it out in the past, and I'm sure alot of that just comes from your frustration of them not using that on a much more important area, the lines. CB's seems to be a position where alot of money is paid out for mediocre players in FA so getting them through the draft is a much cheaper approach. It sucks to keep using a draft pick to bring one in when another that we developped goes off and gets big bucks somewhere else, but I don't think they select one in the first this year unless he is the top rated player in the draft at that pick. Last year they did reach for Donte, but it was a move they made because they liked him and was exactly what they were looking for, and rumor had it the Bills could have moved down, but could have lost him if they did.