- 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 1:16 pm to diat150
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:16 pm to diat150
quote:
good luck with that, the majority of his snaps have been at tight end
um... quomo say what??? would you mind producing evidence of this? here's mine I'm all for reading something that says otherwise
quote:
They can sign Graham to a long-term deal or they can use the franchise tag, a choice that’s fraught with its own potential trouble for New Orleans. By NFL rule, players are given a franchise tag at the position where they participated in the most plays and Graham was used as a traditional, in-line tight end just one-third of the time during the 2013 season. That could set up a fight about whether Graham should be treated as a receiver or if the job description of a tight end has changed enough that he still qualifies at that spot.
quote:
top players show up in big games. where was jimmy the last few weeks of the season?
beating double and triple coverage with a bad foot. maybe even the same place the all world Calving Johnson (Megatron for those of you who prefer nicknames) was against Min (4/37yds), Cle (3/25yds), Phi (3/52yds) and NYG (3/43yds).
And by this "last few weeks of the season," are you referring to his games against Car (6/58yds 2TD), StL (2/25yds), Car (5/73yds 1td) and TB (5/71yd 1td)? Or did you mean POST SEASON in which he had 3/44 and 1/8 in those two games?
Yes it's easy to focus on a game or two here or there and state that a player "disapears," but sometimes the more difficult task of viewing a player over his entire season and career paints a better picture of what he really is worth. It's especially easy to be wrong when the games you reference are great games by the player. And it's even triply easy to be dead wrong when you try and state the limitation of your contention that it must be "BIG GAMES," when he had great productivity and was the main reason we won in must win scenarios against Car twice and TB once.
Conclusion? You fail.
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 1:19 pm
1
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:28 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
Yes, but that doesn't mean there's only enough room for one marquee player. Every team has the same salary cap, and they all have a couple of big time salaries on their rosters. It's the nature of the business. When you have the top TE in the league that you groomed from a rookie who has develped tremendous chemistry on your team, you don't let him walk to another team and give them production.
What you don't do is make blanket statements/decisions like you did here without considering the alternatives.
You've made no case that Graham is the best place to spend the money.
It would take me about 5 seconds to put together a reasonable argument that Graham shouldn't be paid WR money because it burdens the Saints in a way that no other team is burdened...and obviously has negative impact in other areas.
quote:
If Jimmay starts asking for top5 WR money, then we have a problem; however, there is nothing indicating this is the case (the franchise argument is different than long term deal)
If he starts asking for anything other than TE money (albeit top TE money) we have a problem. Make no mistake about it.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:34 pm to moneyg
I believe there is 0.0% chance the FO will give JG a big long term deal as a WR.
And I would be very surprised is his camp forever remained adamant with that in mind during negotiations.
We will see in 2015 as I think a tag will be coming next.
And I would be very surprised is his camp forever remained adamant with that in mind during negotiations.
We will see in 2015 as I think a tag will be coming next.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:38 pm to moneyg
quote:
You've made no case that Graham is the best place to spend the money.
No? I believe I stated
quote:. What more needs to be said?
have the top TE in the league
quote:
It would take me about 5 seconds to put together a reasonable argument that Graham shouldn't be paid WR money because it burdens the Saints in a way that no other team is burdened...and obviously has negative impact in other areas.
1. this is such a broad statement. WR money can range anywhere from Calvin Johnson to Nick Toon.
2. I clearly state that he should not be paid top 5 WR money
3. He needs to be paid somewhere between the top TE contract and the top WR contract, since this sums up what his role is.
4. I did state that based on his playing time, if francised, he should be done so by WR standards. This by no means translates to me saying we should sign him long term to top 5 WR contract. Again, the franchise and long-term contracts are two completely seperate discussions
quote:
f he starts asking for anything other than TE money (albeit top TE money) we have a problem
He's not a TE. He's a TE/WR, and deserves accordingly. He should be paid in the range of Gronkowski (who was paid handsomely), plus a little extra (since this is how contracts work)
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:46 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
because mediocrity is better than paying top players what they are worth
Sometimes, cap space to spend on multiple quality players is worth more than one great player. Graham is 28 and our offense is dynamic enough that we could be successful without him eating up all kinds of cap space for 5 more years. He wasn't even on the team when we won the superbowl. So obviously, our offense has succeeded before without him. At this point, we need more capable weapons around Brees rather than one really really good one. I'm fine with franchising him. But I dont want to sign him long term.
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:50 pm to Midget Death Squad
here you go
LINK
[quote]But only during the regular season, where Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports for The National Football Post that the Saints lined up Graham in what are considered wide receiver positions 49.8 percent of the offensive snaps he played in 2013. - See more at: LINK ]
LINK
[quote]But only during the regular season, where Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports for The National Football Post that the Saints lined up Graham in what are considered wide receiver positions 49.8 percent of the offensive snaps he played in 2013. - See more at: LINK ]
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:53 pm to tunechi
It would be retarded to waste the franchise tag on Graham when Jenkins is also an UFA.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:54 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Sometimes, cap space to spend on multiple quality players is worth more than one great player. Graham is 28 and our offense is dynamic enough that we could be successful without him eating up all kinds of cap space for 5 more years. He wasn't even on the team when we won the superbowl. So obviously, our offense has succeeded before without him. At this point, we need more capable weapons around Brees rather than one really really good one. I'm fine with franchising him. But I dont want to sign him long term.
thats where I stand. there are some very good wrs available in free agency and we still have josh hill and ben watson, both who are pretty decent. Not to mention we have some studs we have to resign on defense.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:54 pm to HollierThanThou
quote:
It would be retarded to waste the franchise tag on Graham when Jenkins is also an UFA.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:55 pm to diat150
the problem comes in that he's at 52% as WR when factoring in the post season (which will be done), and he was 65% WR in 2012. So he is mostly used as a WR. I don't see much the Saints have to stand on. This is more reason to get the deal done prior to having to franchise him. A long-term deal will be a fair one, whereas franchising him will be overpaying for his services (I believe NFL sides with Jimmay on this one)
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:56 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
(which will be done),
link? Cause saints GM is not.
quote:
I don't see much the Saints have to stand on.
49.2
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 1:59 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
I don't see much the Saints have to stand on.
good luck with that jimmy. I hope you dont get your jimmy rustled.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:05 pm to diat150
We're already a bit handcuffed by Brees' contract. We cant afford to handcuff ourselves more with Jimmy. I like Watson too and if we let Jimmy walk after we franchise him, we will probably need to get another solid TE, but we dont have to break the bank to get him. It's weird that I'm saying all of this because a year ago, I never would have suggested this. But seeing how much Brees' contract is limiting us, we need to save money anywhere we can.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:06 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
But seeing how much Brees' contract is limiting us,
i am starting to loathe this board.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:09 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
i am starting to loathe this board.
Where was I wrong? Is it not eating up cap space? I'm not saying we shouldn't have resigned Brees but I still realize that this is something that prevents us from adding as much talent as we had before we resigned him.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:10 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Is it not eating up cap space?
as opposed to any other player on the roster?
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:11 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
No? I believe I stated
quote:
have the top TE in the league
. What more needs to be said?
Seriously? You have to evaluate everything related to the team and decide what makes you better. Paying Graham now, can have an impact on keeping future players.
quote:
1. this is such a broad statement. WR money can range anywhere from Calvin Johnson to Nick Toon.
You are lost. We need to pay him TE money. If Toon money is below top TE money, then obviously that's a moot point. If Toon money is 5M+ over the top TE salary then we have a problem.
quote:
2. I clearly state that he should not be paid top 5 WR money
Way to go out on a limb.
quote:
3. He needs to be paid somewhere between the top TE contract and the top WR contract, since this sums up what his role is.
No. He needs to be offered something very similar to the top TE contract. It's asinine to offer anything other than that.
quote:
4. I did state that based on his playing time, if francised, he should be done so by WR standards. This by no means translates to me saying we should sign him long term to top 5 WR contract. Again, the franchise and long-term contracts are two completely seperate discussions
The Saints will franchise him as a WR only if they have to.
quote:
He's not a TE. He's a TE/WR, and deserves accordingly. He should be paid in the range of Gronkowski (who was paid handsomely), plus a little extra (since this is how contracts work)
I agree that he should be paid like Gronkowski. But, it's not because he deserves to be paid like a WR.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:13 pm to Chad504boy
quote:Its becoming pretty insufferable
i am starting to loathe this board.
Eta: this isn't directed specifically at Hazelnut
This post was edited on 1/21/14 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:14 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
as opposed to any other player on the roster?
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.
Posted on 1/21/14 at 2:18 pm to Hazelnut
quote:It was pretty bad here after the playoff loss.
I still dont see what was so wrong about what I said.
Every post was bashing Brees and his contract, saying we're totally done because of him.
We're still a bit raw from that, I'm guessing.
Because what you said wasn't really antagonistic.
Page 2 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News