- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Loomis: Graham WILL be franchised if no long-term deal is met
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:38 pm to Hazelnut
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:38 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Right. And when you sign someone, it limits how many other people you can sign. And when you sign someone to as much as we signed brees, it limits how much help we can put around him. So, in conclusion, his signing did limit us. I still dont see what was so wrong about what I said.
resigning of luke mccown will limit us in signing jimmy graham.
signing a right tackle will limit us.
paying broderick bunkley limits us.
paying junior galette limits us.
paying keenan lewis limits us.
paying curtis lofton limits us.
my god, shut the frick up about drew's contract.
1
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:38 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
in conclusion, his signing did limit us
Same could be said about the Patriots and Broncos. Oh wait....
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:40 pm to tunechi
quote:
Graham WILL be franchised if no long-term deal is met
I'm going to go ahead and file that under DUH.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:40 pm to Midget Death Squad
unless you are able to strike quickly with a rookie qb on a loaded team, paying your top echelon qb 18-22 million dollars is par for the game. Shut up about it, my holy fricking god shite's getting retarded.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:43 pm to Chad504boy
yup. board is loaded with people that think the game is won with min wage players
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:55 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
Same could be said about the Patriots and Broncos. Oh wait....
The Patriots also have let plenty of key players go while they were still producing at a high level. Welker is the most recent one. I'm not saying we shouldn't have signed Brees. Yall seem to think I said that somewhere. What I'm saying is, because we signed him to this deal we have to be very stingy with our money in other areas. Signing a 28 year old Graham to a huge, long term contract does not seem like a good idea to me.
quote:
unless you are able to strike quickly with a rookie qb on a loaded team, paying your top echelon qb 18-22 million dollars is par for the game. Shut up about it, my holy fricking god shite's getting retarded.
Please show me where I said we shouldn't have signed Brees to that deal.
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:57 pm to Chad504boy
The landscape of the NFL is changing. Before, you had giant rookie contracts for high draft picks and big veteran contracts for superstars and a bunch of middle of the road guys.
Now, the Really Big Contracts are by the older players and the rookies have really small deals. The trick/trend we will start seeing is having a top notch QB (biggest money) and defensive stud (CB, OLB or DE type money) a bunch of middle of the road players and a bunch of rookies.
I think average age of the NFL player will get younger as more rookies are kept around to fill out rosters. They have better contracts than a 10 year vet on a minimum salary.
IMO & IMHO
Now, the Really Big Contracts are by the older players and the rookies have really small deals. The trick/trend we will start seeing is having a top notch QB (biggest money) and defensive stud (CB, OLB or DE type money) a bunch of middle of the road players and a bunch of rookies.
I think average age of the NFL player will get younger as more rookies are kept around to fill out rosters. They have better contracts than a 10 year vet on a minimum salary.
IMO & IMHO
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:01 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Please show me where I said we shouldn't have signed Brees to that deal.
Please show me where i said that you said we shouldn't have signed Brees to that deal.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:03 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
resigning of luke mccown will limit us in signing jimmy graham.
signing a right tackle will limit us.
paying broderick bunkley limits us.
paying junior galette limits us.
paying keenan lewis limits us.
paying curtis lofton limits us.
my god, shut the frick up about drew's contract.
You're the one that started bitching about me even bringing it up. It wasn't even supposed to be a big part of my post. Whether you want to believe it or not, the biggest contract on our team does play a role in determining who we do and dont sign. That was my original point. Chill the frick out and learn some damn reading comprehension.
For someone that loves to troll these boards often, you get really pissy.
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:05 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Please show me where i said that you said we shouldn't have signed Brees to that deal.
right here
quote:
unless you are able to strike quickly with a rookie qb on a loaded team, paying your top echelon qb 18-22 million dollars is par for the game.
you're implying I dont think we should have paid our qb 18-22 million
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:06 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
You're the one that started bitching about me even bringing it up.
Yes cause it's fricking retarded to even bring up.
quote:
Whether you want to believe it or not, the biggest contract on our team does play a role in determining who we do and dont sign.
I would also add it's also the greatest ASSET as to who we can and can't sign.
quote:
That was my original point.
don't kid, there was no original point.
quote:
Chill the frick out
no
quote:
and learn some damn reading comprehension.
I think you can greatly improve here.
quote:
For someone that loves to troll these boards often
I don't troll, i patrol
quote:
, you get really pissy.
yea my bad b, i'm just getting pissy about people constantly talking about the greatest player in the history of our franchise is in any kind of way a hindrance to our future and past success. silly me.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:07 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
you're implying I dont think we should have paid our qb 18-22 million
Oh, we're playing implying game. You're implying since his contract is such a hindrance, then we shouldn't have given it to him. Implying game. And i need help on reading comprehension. I'm not in the mood little boy.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:19 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Yes cause it's fricking retarded to even bring up.
No, it's not. It does play a role in whether or not we sign someone like Graham to a long term deal. If we're paying Brees as much as we're paying him (WHICH IS frickING OKAY WITH ME), then we have to be more careful with who we give big, long term deals to.
quote:
I would also add it's also the greatest ASSET as to who we can and can't sign.
No argument here
quote:
don't kid, there was no original point.
Yes, my original point was that I dont think we should resign graham long term.
quote:
I think you can greatly improve here.
Ya know, I apologize for the personal insult. you're just pissing me off. But I shouldn't have gone there
quote:
I don't troll, i patrol
quote:
yea my bad b, i'm just getting pissy about people constantly talking about the greatest player in the history of our franchise is in any kind of way a hindrance to our future and past success. silly me.
Signing Brees was necessary/needed. This team would not be better without him. However, signing him presented other challenges we hadn't had to face when he was on his previous deal. That is, working with much less cap space than was needed.
Is that better? Because that's what I meant all along. I just figured you and others who have seen me post would realize that I did not mean for it to be a Brees bashing post.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:33 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
The Patriots also have let plenty of key players go while they were still producing at a high level
yes, ones that are older and about to decline.
quote:
Welker is the most recent one
Signed by the Broncos with that debilitating Manning contract. And how good were the Pats WR's this year? Who blew who out in that game Sunday?
While yes, signing a QB to his market value is expensive, it does not preclude a team from signing other key players. Graham is one of the top players in the league, and he is someone that an offense can be built around and centered upon. He will only get better, and we can develop other WR's due to his high productivity. When you have the best player at the position on your team, one that you developed and groomed, you sign him. That doesn't mean you let him contract-rape you, but Graham has given no indication that this is his intention. It is well within the realm of possibility and probability that teams can have more than one star player contract.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:34 pm to Hazelnut
I knew cocaine face.
And it is a damn beat to death talking point around here
But its not ending for years to come Chad so...
And it is a damn beat to death talking point around here
But its not ending for years to come Chad so...
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:41 pm to goatmilker
All i got from this is hazelnut considers brees' contract a hindrance to the team.
I mean, the guy played all-pro level for 6 years on a 10m/yr average contract.
Paying him 20mil a year is a sweet bargain...or would you rather joe flacco?
I mean even paying him 18mil a year, it'd still be a high cap number, but he is our offense.
I mean, the guy played all-pro level for 6 years on a 10m/yr average contract.
Paying him 20mil a year is a sweet bargain...or would you rather joe flacco?
I mean even paying him 18mil a year, it'd still be a high cap number, but he is our offense.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:44 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
While yes, signing a QB to his market value is expensive, it does not preclude a team from signing other key players.
Correct it doesn't. But it means we should be more careful with our remaining money.
quote:
Graham is one of the top players in the league, and he is someone that an offense can be built around and centered upon.
He's one of the top TE/WRs in the league. But he's not, in my opinion someone we should build our offense around. We won a superbowl without him once, we can do it without him again. If we use our money wisely.
quote:
He will only get better, and we can develop other WR's due to his high productivity. When you have the best player at the position on your team, one that you developed and groomed, you sign him.
I disagree he will only get better. He will get a little better but, he's still not young (football wise) anymore. He's in his prime right now. Which is why I'd love to have him for another year. But I really dont like the idea of having him for 5 more years.
quote:
That doesn't mean you let him contract-rape you, but Graham has given no indication that this is his intention.
It doesn't mean he wont.
quote:
It is well within the realm of possibility and probability that teams can have more than one star player contract.
Of course it is. I just dont think it should be spent on Graham. I love him, but I dont think he should get it.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:49 pm to htran90
quote:
All i got from this is hazelnut considers brees' contract a hindrance to the team.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 3:53 pm to Hazelnut
Wait until Fox Mulder returns to this board.
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 4:38 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
because mediocrity is better than paying top players what they are worth
mediocrity definition: Jimmy Graham when it counts
He can't produce against physical defenses. I already posted his stats against the most physical defenses we played this year and they were awful.
Who cares if he can torch defenses like Dallas, Atlanta and Miami. If he can't come up big in must win games and playoff games outside the dome, is he worth the money?
I'd put him on the block to see what teams would offer.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News