truth on hold Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 briggs gets about 1/3 of what porter gets. and who is porter? an aging malcontent who was cut by his team and by many accounts has lost a step. briggs has only a 1yr with no extension under franchise tag. briggs must be ripe for the taking from bears right now. i like him more than porter, how about we make a play for him? our first round and sign briggs to extension with porter-type money? crowell is already penciled in at MLB, put briggs at OLB and make spikes compete for the other OLB spot. or is it better to keep the pick and hope willis is there at 12? http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Auuv...p&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBilliever Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Which, I believe, is why he wants a trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 i understand why the players hate the franchise tag. and i understand why the teams NEED it. but maybe they should do something along the lines of: if you tag someone, you can not sign them to anything less than a 3 year deal. i dont know... just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 one problem, do the Bills have the money to deal away McGahee for Briggs and then be able to sign him to what he wants and get a starting RB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 i understand why the players hate the franchise tag. and i understand why the teams NEED it. but maybe they should do something along the lines of: if you tag someone, you can not sign them to anything less than a 3 year deal. i dont know... just a thought Hmmmm, interesting idea. the tag was designed as basically a way for teams to keep high profile players, and then possibly sign them long term. But in this case, the cheap ass bears dont want to lose Briggs, but they dont want to pay him either. Kinda screws Briggs. Perhaps they could make the tag a 2 year guaranteed deal if you decide to tag a player. I dunno., i am kind of on the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 Hmmmm, interesting idea. the tag was designed as basically a way for teams to keep high profile players, and then possibly sign them long term. But in this case, the cheap ass bears dont want to lose Briggs, but they dont want to pay him either. Kinda screws Briggs. Perhaps they could make the tag a 2 year guaranteed deal if you decide to tag a player. I dunno., i am kind of on the fence. i think they should declare that a team can only use the tag once on a player. this way they know it's only for a year and after that they either get a longer term deal or they are free to go. what has to eat at a player is the potential for a team to keep tagging them to 1 year deals. bills showed class in committing to not doing this to nate although per league rules they had every right to. by letting the players know it's only a one-time thing i think it substantially reduces the odds they sit out and also increases their desire to perform for that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 i think they should declare that a team can only use the tag once on a player. this way they know it's only for a year and after that they either get a longer term deal or they are free to go. what has to eat at a player is the potential for a team to keep tagging them to 1 year deals. bills showed class in committing to not doing this to nate although per league rules they had every right to. by letting the players know it's only a one-time thing i think it substantially reduces the odds they sit out and also increases their desire to perform for that year. If I recall correctly, the current rule in place requires that for each successive time you tag a guy, his salary is either the top 5 in his position, or increases by 20%, wichever is higher. I understand a players position, but lets think about this for a minute. Yes Porter got 20M guarenteed, but he is also getting a league minimum salary to go with the guarenteed money (assumption on my part, but its probably close to it). Briggs is getting 7M (or so) guarenteed this year, and then will likely sign a contract next year worth 20M guarenteed (or more). In a 2 year time frame, he will make MORE money than porter. Catch is, if he gets hurt this year, he loses big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Capolupo Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 i think they should declare that a team can only use the tag once on a player. this way they know it's only for a year and after that they either get a longer term deal or they are free to go. what has to eat at a player is the potential for a team to keep tagging them to 1 year deals. bills showed class in committing to not doing this to nate although per league rules they had every right to. by letting the players know it's only a one-time thing i think it substantially reduces the odds they sit out and also increases their desire to perform for that year. well if by class you mean they followed the terms of the contract they agreed to, which was only to franchise him that one year.. then he was not allowed to be franchised by the bills again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If I recall correctly, the current rule in place requires that for each successive time you tag a guy, his salary is either the top 5 in his position, or increases by 20%, wichever is higher. I understand a players position, but lets think about this for a minute. Yes Porter got 20M guarenteed, but he is also getting a league minimum salary to go with the guarenteed money (assumption on my part, but its probably close to it). Briggs is getting 7M (or so) guarenteed this year, and then will likely sign a contract next year worth 20M guarenteed (or more). In a 2 year time frame, he will make MORE money than porter. Catch is, if he gets hurt this year, he loses big time. The franchise tag carries a 1 year, guaranteed salary of the average of the top 5 salaries. There is no signing bonus. currently, a team can only tag a player 2 years in a row. If they tag him a third time, the player gets the average of the top 5 salaries in the league, or the highest franchise tag number (that of a QB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts