auburnbillsbacker Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I find the Chargers decision to tag Sproles intersting. Like Turner, he is their backup rb. Unlike Turner, most people do not think he can be an every down back. Does AJ Smith think he can get good compensation for Sproles, or is he worthing keeping at 6 million dollars? Other teams have decided to use the tag on kickers. I guess the tag number is cheap, so it makes sense. It just seems strange. The Patriots used the tag on Cassel, and now will use 25% of their cap space on the qb position. Finally, teams are not afraid to tag a player two years in a row. The Cardinals did it with Dansby, and the Ravens with Suggs. We let Nate go after one year under the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think part of the reason is the cap is so high there is little danger of going over it and you can keep your players an extra year without a long term deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 We let Nate go after one year under the tag. The NFL is a copycat league, as evidenced by how teams are now using the tag. Using it on kickers and a second time on other players is becoming the norm as teams are averse to inking several larger contracts or letting players walk out the door without compensation. With NFL careers able to be ended or reduced in an instant (either off or on the field), giving large contracts with guaranteed money is a huge gamble. When NC left, it was anti-climactic because the Bills tagged NC without ever intending to sign him long term. That to me is the worst personnel move made during the past three seasons. Allowing him to leave without compensation was what a front office behind the curve does. Franchising players without an intention to re-sign or trade them is non-sensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The NFL is a copycat league, as evidenced by how teams are now using the tag. Using it on kickers and a second time on other players is becoming the norm as teams are averse to inking several larger contracts or letting players walk out the door without compensation. With NFL careers able to be ended or reduced in an instant (either off or on the field), giving large contracts with guaranteed money is a huge gamble. When NC left, it was anti-climactic because the Bills tagged NC without ever intending to sign him long term. That to me is the worst personnel move made during the past three seasons. Allowing him to leave without compensation was what a front office behind the curve does. Franchising players without an intention to re-sign or trade them is non-sensical. Briggs, Haynesworth, Samuel, etc. Lots of these guys aren't signing the franchise tag until they have a clause that will prevent them from being franchised again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think part of the reason is the cap is so high there is little danger of going over it and you can keep your players an extra year without a long term deal. I agree. In the past teams did not use the tag because of the cap hit. You had to sign a player to a multi-year deal, so you could spread out the signing bonus over the life of the contract to keep the cap hit low. I remember P. Price claimed he would sign the franchise deal if taged, thus putting us in cap jail. The salary cap is a joke right now. Very few teams worry about the caps, and most who do have themselves to blame. Look at the contracts the raiders gave out last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Briggs, Haynesworth, Samuel, etc. Lots of these guys aren't signing the franchise tag until they have a clause that will prevent them from being franchised again. Teams do this to prevent the player from holding out. I have the feeling that teams like the Cardinals and Ravens would not be bullied around by their players. It probably is in your best interest to use the tag, and let the player do what he is going to do. Eventually they are going to show up and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Briggs, Haynesworth, Samuel, etc. Lots of these guys aren't signing the franchise tag until they have a clause that will prevent them from being franchised again. As opposed to a verbal promise given during training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 As opposed to a verbal promise given during training camp. Whats the difference? All of the players received a promise not to be tagged again. The Bills didn't want to set a bad precedent by outright lying to one of their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 With the inflated values of corners, is there any way the bills tag Greer. I don't think they will, but he will get a huge deal this offseason. I know we have depth at the postion, but I hate seeing guys leave without us getting in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 With the inflated values of corners, is there any way the bills tag Greer. I don't think they will, but he will get a huge deal this offseason. I know we have depth at the postion, but I hate seeing guys leave without us getting in return. Unfortunately, that is what happens to all teams now. I don't think they tag him at $9M. Hate to see him leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Briggs, Haynesworth, Samuel, etc. Lots of these guys aren't signing the franchise tag until they have a clause that will prevent them from being franchised again. Is getting franchised 2 years in a row really that bad though? You get franchised the 1st year, you make crazy money. Take Dansby. I think he made 7 million last year. Now they are franchising him again with a 20% increase he is going to make 9 million this year. I know you do not get the big contract but alot of those contracts are back loaded anyways with money players will never see. Dansby being franchised(if he plays it out this year) could of done alot worse then making 16 mill for 2 years of service. Then next year he could on the open market & still get his big signing bonus. Always a risk of an injury, but other then that I really do not see that much of a down side of being franchised 2yrs in a row. If anything, Dansby has a good year this year & hits the open market next offseason I would venture to say he is probably when all is said & done going to make more being franchised for 2yrs(then signing a FA contract) then he would if he hit the open market in 08/09. Sean Alexander was in the same situation. I think they franchised him for 3 years. I think he made in those 3 years a little over 20 milll. Not bad & probably made the same as he would made with a long term free agent contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 If I was the bills also, I would give it a hard look into franchising Greer. If nothing else, we could probably get a 2nd rnd pick for him from some other team. Good young Cbs are really at a premium these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJBuffalo Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is getting franchised 2 years in a row really that bad though? You get franchised the 1st year, you make crazy money. Take Dansby. I think he made 7 million last year. Now they are franchising him again with a 20% increase he is going to make 9 million this year. I know you do not get the big contract but alot of those contracts are back loaded anyways with money players will never see. Dansby being franchised(if he plays it out this year) could of done alot worse then making 16 mill for 2 years of service. Then next year he could on the open market & still get his big signing bonus. Always a risk of an injury, but other then that I really do not see that much of a down side of being franchised 2yrs in a row. If anything, Dansby has a good year this year & hits the open market next offseason I would venture to say he is probably when all is said & done going to make more being franchised for 2yrs(then signing a FA contract) then he would if he hit the open market in 08/09. Sean Alexander was in the same situation. I think they franchised him for 3 years. I think he made in those 3 years a little over 20 milll. Not bad & probably made the same as he would made with a long term free agent contract. great point. the question is are you willing to risk the chance of injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is getting franchised 2 years in a row really that bad though? You get franchised the 1st year, you make crazy money. Take Dansby. I think he made 7 million last year. Now they are franchising him again with a 20% increase he is going to make 9 million this year. I know you do not get the big contract but alot of those contracts are back loaded anyways with money players will never see. Dansby being franchised(if he plays it out this year) could of done alot worse then making 16 mill for 2 years of service. Then next year he could on the open market & still get his big signing bonus. Always a risk of an injury, but other then that I really do not see that much of a down side of being franchised 2yrs in a row. If anything, Dansby has a good year this year & hits the open market next offseason I would venture to say he is probably when all is said & done going to make more being franchised for 2yrs(then signing a FA contract) then he would if he hit the open market in 08/09. Sean Alexander was in the same situation. I think they franchised him for 3 years. I think he made in those 3 years a little over 20 milll. Not bad & probably made the same as he would made with a long term free agent contract. The risk with the franchise tag is that you are forgoing the guaranteed money you could collect on a long term deal. That's why players hate it. You are right that Dansby will bank 16 million over 2 years, a good chunk of coin. But what happens if Dansby blows out a knee and his career is done? He would have the 9 mil from this season and thats it. Compare that to the open market where he's probably sign for 7-8 milper year with 20 mil guaranteed. Sure he's getting 9 mil in one year, but on the open market he'd bank at least 25-30 mil over the next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 great point. the question is are you willing to risk the chance of injury? Most guys are not & that is why most guys put up a stink with the franchise tag. But if you do get out of the 2yrs injury free & are still playing at a high level you would make more money playing under the tag 2yrs then hitting a nice fa contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The risk with the franchise tag is that you are forgoing the guaranteed money you could collect on a long term deal. That's why players hate it. You are right that Dansby will bank 16 million over 2 years, a good chunk of coin. But what happens if Dansby blows out a knee and his career is done? He would have the 9 mil from this season and thats it. Compare that to the open market where he's probably sign for 7-8 milper year with 20 mil guaranteed. Sure he's getting 9 mil in one year, but on the open market he'd bank at least 25-30 mil over the next year. That is the risk & that is why guys do not like it but what I am saying is that if he signs the tag this year, comes out of it without an injury, he will have pocketed 16 mill for 2yrs & will still get the big contract next year with 15-20 mill guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That is the risk & that is why guys do not like it but what I am saying is that if he signs the tag this year, comes out of it without an injury, he will have pocketed 16 mill for 2yrs & will still get the big contract next year with 15-20 mill guaranteed. Yep. B'gals G/T Stacey Andrews signed the 1-year top five deal. A 4th rounder who struck gold. Got a knee torn up in the latter half of the season. That's bad, but he got a bucketful of cash up front. Who knows? He may never play again, but if he has a half of a brain and he watched that money, he will live a secure, fortunate livelihood for the rest of his natural life. Nice housing, car, food, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts