- 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: So BSPN just said.........
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:57 pm to Thracken13
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:57 pm to Thracken13
I mean, he's got exactly 4 total options:
1) Sit out (looks terrible on your character, not really an option)
2) Get signed by another team (not really an option unless a team is willing to give up 2 drafts). He's good, he ain't that good though.
3) He signs a new contract and plays
4) He signs the tag and plays
I think #1 would be worst case for NO, but not really plausible in reality. So that leaves #4 as the next worst case for NO because he's only here for 1 year and then he gone. I still think option #2 or #3 happens but at this point, what's JG trying to prove? He must be in some super-secret TE club where they do everything they can to make TE's rich as hell.
1) Sit out (looks terrible on your character, not really an option)
2) Get signed by another team (not really an option unless a team is willing to give up 2 drafts). He's good, he ain't that good though.
3) He signs a new contract and plays
4) He signs the tag and plays
I think #1 would be worst case for NO, but not really plausible in reality. So that leaves #4 as the next worst case for NO because he's only here for 1 year and then he gone. I still think option #2 or #3 happens but at this point, what's JG trying to prove? He must be in some super-secret TE club where they do everything they can to make TE's rich as hell.
2
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:03 pm to DoubleDown
i think 1 would be the worst for JG over NO. NO has been pretty fair in their offer, and his choosing to sit-out would just reflect negatively on his character. its not like we offered him really low money or anything.
and as for option 4, again its not a really bad thing for NO. we get his services and if he feels like the FO has done him wrong, he moves on. Ben Watson has the experience to be a decent TE for us.
in all honesty, at least imo, its eiter bad for him, good for us - or we part ways after a year.
and as for option 4, again its not a really bad thing for NO. we get his services and if he feels like the FO has done him wrong, he moves on. Ben Watson has the experience to be a decent TE for us.
in all honesty, at least imo, its eiter bad for him, good for us - or we part ways after a year.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:07 pm to TheFreakyRobber
wildcard playoff team, but playoff team no doubt
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:40 pm to Thracken13
quote:
and as for option 4, again its not a really bad thing for NO. we get his services and if he feels like the FO has done him wrong, he moves on. Ben Watson has the experience to be a decent TE for us.
And we can tag him again
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:41 pm to Hoodoo Man
I said B not E
so how is BSPN advertising for them?
so how is BSPN advertising for them?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:45 pm to TheFreakyRobber
You're getting up in arms about what was said, and then you're bringing it to our attention.
That way, we can get outraged and turn on the channel.
That way, we can get outraged and turn on the channel.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:46 pm to TheFreakyRobber
Well, I guess that 2009 Super Bowl win is a just a figment of our imaginations then because there's no way we can win one without Jimmy now. 
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:57 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Sentrius
Eh, don't play that card. ESPN isn't talking about 2009. They're asking people if they think the NO Saints are a playoff team this year without Jimmy. Stupid stuff like this has to get asked when there's 24/7 ESPN shows with shite to talk about.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:03 pm to Hoodoo Man
quote:
You're getting up in arms about what was said, and then you're bringing it to our attention.
That way, we can get outraged and turn on the channel.
I mean, the logic is there...
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:04 pm to DoubleDown
quote:
So that leaves #4 as the next worst case for NO because he's only here for 1 year and then he gone.
yeah thats not how it works.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:08 pm to BlacknGold
True, I did forget about the 2nd year of franchising. Still, could make things rocky and still expensive since a longer term deal with that Loomis math should actually bring his salary down.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:15 pm to DoubleDown
We're offering $9.5m per. If we tagged him 3 years in a row at $7m, $8.4m, and then $12m it comes out to about $9.2m per. We actually do better not signing him long term.
Of course that would create bad feelings so everyone should have a long term deal as their best bet.
Of course that would create bad feelings so everyone should have a long term deal as their best bet.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:17 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
and then $12m it comes out to about $9.2m per. We actually do better not signing him long term.
Wouldn't the third year be a lot more than $12 million. It would be the QB franchise tag right?
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:19 pm to chRxis
quote:
wildcard playoff team, but playoff team no doubt
Which NFCS team surpasses a Grahamless Saints team? The Saints would still have the best offense and, at worst, the second best defense.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:22 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
Wouldn't the third year be a lot more than $12 million. It would be the QB franchise tag right?
120% of his previous season's cost.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:23 pm to TheFreakyRobber
I don't think we were last year. Our weapons are pretty bad. I'm so glad we have Cooks now.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:26 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
120% of his previous season's cost.
That isn't correct. That is the rule for the 2nd year.
The 3rd year is the franchise tag rate for the highest category (which would be QBs). He wouldn't be able to sign with any other teams in year 3 though
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:29 pm to TigerBait1127
You're right:
LINK /
LINK /
quote:
. No non-quarterback will be tagged more than twice.
Former Seahawks tackle Walter Jones once spent three straight years under the franchise tag, pocketing a total of $20 million and then signing a long-term deal that paid him $20 million more guaranteed, back when $20 million was a very big deal for NFL purposes.
Jones rolled the dice on bearing the injury risk for the three franchise years, and he won. Most players prefer the certainty of a long-term deal.
That’s why the 2006 CBA changed the formula to pay a non-quarterback the quarterback franchise tender if he’s tagged a third time.
Quarterbacks are protected, too. In the third year of the franchise tag, they get at least a 44-percent raise over their cap number in the prior year.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:34 pm to TigerBait1127
I'm worried about keeping our DL together. If it meant keeping Junior/Hicks/Jordan longterm, I'd be OK with franchising Graham twice and letting him walk.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News