Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Offseason Cuts/Trades/Signings/Franchise Tags etc.

  • 02-03-2012 10:16pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,929 ✭✭✭JaMarcus Hustle


    We've had one of these for the last few years, very handy to keep up to date on the latest personnel changes in the NFL.

    The significant player moves so far have been:

    Franchise Tags:

    Cardinals tag Calais Campbell
    Falcons tag Brent Grimes
    Ravens tag Ray Rice
    Bengals tag Mike Nugent
    Raiders tag Tyvon Branch
    Eagles tag DeSean Jackson
    49ers tag Dashon Goldson
    Redskins tag Fred Davis

    Cuts:

    Steelers cut James Farrior
    Steelers cut Aaron Smith
    Steelers cut Hines Ward
    Steelers cut Chris Kemoeatu
    Bears cut Anthony Adams
    Bears cut Frank Omiyale
    Ravens cut Lee Evans
    Ravens cut Chris Carr

    Re-Signings:

    49ers resign Ahmad Brooks (6 years, $44.5m)
    Browns resign D'Qwell Jackson (5 years, $42.5m)

    Retirements:

    Chargers Kris Dielman retires

    Probably missing some obvious ones, so feel free to add more. Hopefully we'll have a nice little database of transactions and moves as the offseason progresses.


«13456722

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Cuts:
    Raiders Stanford Routt

    Signings
    Chiefs Stanford Routt


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,361 ✭✭✭✭DDC1990


    I've been watching NFL for a good few years, and would know the ins and outs fairly well, but one thing i've always struggled to understand is the idea of Franchise tagging a player.

    Would someone more knowledgable then me explain the whole system.

    Is it a 1 year contract, where the player gets a lot of money guarenteed... or something?
    I just don't see how it benifits the team.

    Sorry if im coming across as stupid here!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    DDC1990 wrote: »
    I've been watching NFL for a good few years, and would know the ins and outs fairly well, but one thing i've always struggled to understand is the idea of Franchise tagging a player.

    Would someone more knowledgable then me explain the whole system.

    Is it a 1 year contract, where the player gets a lot of money guarenteed... or something?
    I just don't see how it benifits the team.

    Sorry if im coming across as stupid here!



    It's a 1 year contract where the players gets the average salary of the top 5 highest paid players on that position. Various reasons why it has a benefit. Gives extra time to work out a long term deal, chance to get one extra year out of a player, chance to tag and trade and player for compensation. If you've two big name players hitting the FA chances are you won't be able to sign both to longer term high contracts so tagging one allows you to sign the other.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    Retired:
    Ricky Williams(Ravens)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    If you have a player becoming an unrestricted free agent you can give them the franchise tag.
    It gives both sides time to get a long term deal in place for example
    Or maybe you hope to trade them away and get something for them. Matt Cassell is an example. You need lots of cap space to do this so you better be confident you can work a trade


    In the past that player would recieve the average of the top five players in the league at that position.

    This has been changed in the new CBA and now it's worked out in a formula averaging franchise tags over the last five years

    Here is a list of positions and where it currently stands, it will change every year
    QB: $14.4 million in 2012; down from $16.1 million in 2011

    RB: $7.7 million in 2012; down from $9.6 million in 2011

    WR: $9.4 million in 2012; down from 11.4 million in 2011

    TE: $5.4 million in 2012; down from $7.3 million in 2011

    OL: $9.4 million in 2012; down from $10.1 million in 2011

    DE: $10.6 million in 2012; down from $13 million in 2011

    DT: $7.9 million in 2012; down from $12.5 million in 2011

    LB: $8.8 million in 2012; down from $10.1 million in 2011

    CB: $10.6 million in 2012; down from $13.5 million in 2011

    S: $6.2 million in 2012; down from $8.8 million in 2011

    Teams can use a franchise tag three times. The first value is above

    The 2nd year, it's 120% of the prior year or whatever the tag is, whichever is higher.

    The 3rd year, it's the average of the top 5 players in the game, regardless of position.


    Just one last thing, some players don't always slot into a defined position.
    This came up with Terrelle Suggs argueing for the DE value and the Ravens arguing he was a LB
    Or Jamarcus Finlay who is classified by the team as a TE but his agent pushed for WR
    In these cases it's just compromise realy, they'll work out some deal and maybe split it down the middle


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Just one last thing, some players don't always slot into a defined position.
    This came up with Terrelle Suggs argueing for the DE value and the Ravens arguing he was a LB
    Or Jamarcus Finlay who is classified by the team as a TE but his agent pushed for WR
    In these cases it's just compromise realy, they'll work out some deal and maybe split it down the middle



    AFAIK on this an independent panel review each snap and play and see where the player lines up and they make a decision on which position he should be tagged with. Supposedly it was one of the reasons Packers worked out a deal with Finley because they felt he'd end up with the WR tag.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,361 ✭✭✭✭DDC1990


    Thanks guys.

    Makes sense for the Packers to Franchise Matt Flynn, but they have decided against it. Interesting. They could have made a substantial amount.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    DDC1990 wrote: »
    Thanks guys.

    Makes sense for the Packers to Franchise Matt Flynn, but they have decided against it. Interesting. They could have made a substantial amount.


    Not really on that one. If they get stuck with him then they'd have to pay him $14m to sit on the bench, can't afford to be giving your back up QB that kind of money. Teams would have known this so their bargaining position would have been severely weakened.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    The three lads the Steelers released would all do very nicely at the Broncos. Aaron Smith is notably from Colorado too, it works for him and we get Ty Warren back next year too. Defensive line would be in great nick if we got them and kept them fit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭nerd69


    spiralism wrote: »
    The three lads the Steelers released would all do very nicely at the broncos

    ya im surprised there cutting 3 very good players gona be nice pickups somewhere


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    spiralism wrote: »
    The three lads the Steelers released would all do very nicely at the Broncos. Aaron Smith is notably from Colorado too, it works for him and we get Ty Warren back next year too. Defensive line would be in great nick if we got them and kept them fit.

    The thoughts of having a LB corp of Elvis Dumervil (presuming he gets resigned), Farrior and Von Miller would be pretty scary. The thoughts of their pass rush if they did happen to get Smith, and he was fully healthy, as well they would have an unreal pass rush. Saying that though Smith has played 16 games in the last three years so his injuries are clearly a major problem. Talk is that he is considering retirement though


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Farrior is 37 as well. Not sure how much he has left in the tank.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    Farrior is 37 as well. Not sure how much he has left in the tank.

    We're still getting good mileage out of Dawkins at 38 and our LB corps would do well to have a 37 year old vet leader imo. He was still able to perform at an elite level this year. They're not cutting him because they think he's past it at all imo, he's a cap casualty and his age sealed the deal.

    Ward would be a great coup, suits our offence perfectly, hard hitting blocker, tough cúnt and an excellent receiver to complement Thomas. Decker could move to the slot where he belongs.

    Word on the street with the Broncos is that Matt Prater will be getting our Franchise Tag. Excellent decision if it transpires.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    spiralism wrote: »
    We're still getting good mileage out of Dawkins at 38 and our LB corps would do well to have a 37 year old vet leader imo. He was still able to perform at an elite level this year. They're not cutting him because they think he's past it at all imo, he's a cap casualty and his age sealed the deal.

    Ward would be a great coup, suits our offence perfectly, hard hitting blocker, tough cúnt and an excellent receiver to complement Thomas. Decker could move to the slot where he belongs.

    Word on the street with the Broncos is that Matt Prater will be getting our Franchise Tag. Excellent decision if it transpires.


    Dawkins is pretty terrible though, he does provide excellent leadership but that's about it. At this stage you're team has to start getting younger at those positions and start building for the future. I think guys like that would suit your team if it was close to a superbowl but when you are re-building might as well start over. Farrior might be a decentish one year stop gap to train up a rookie though, it will depend on what money he wants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    Dawkins is pretty terrible though, he does provide excellent leadership but that's about it. At this stage you're team has to start getting younger at those positions and start building for the future. I think guys like that would suit your team if it was close to a superbowl but when you are re-building might as well start over. Farrior might be a decentish one year stop gap to train up a rookie though, it will depend on what money he wants.

    His coverage skills are on the wane alright(he was never a ballhawk anyways, more a hard hitter) but he did provide a good tackling presence and was a better coverage safety than anyone else we had (except maybe Carter at a push), as evidenced in the sizeable chunk of games he missed. For a 38 year old we're getting good use out of him.

    Why not look to take the next step? It's not like last year, we may have won only 8 games but tell that to the Steelers and it was twice as many as the year before. We were in the divisional round of the playoffs after all, it's not rebuilding, just building.

    I have no doubt that there is 12 wins in this team and we could be well on our way to becoming a real presence in the AFC if we make the right moves this offseason and build on a great season from last year. Talking of getting younger at positions, LB the average age is quite young, no harm in having a vet presence. We cannot draft for every position of need right away, therefore there is no harm in bringing in proven talent and filling the gaps over time through good personnel decisions. Bringing in Ward and Farrior, for example, would mean we wouldn't have to worry about either position in the draft and could look at other areas of need like RB or the defensive backfield.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    spiralism wrote: »
    Ward would be a great coup, suits our offence perfectly, hard hitting blocker, tough cúnt and an excellent receiver to complement Thomas. Decker could move to the slot where he belongs.

    Whatever questions there are about how much Farrior has left in the tank, and I believe he still has the potential to play in the right system such as Denvers and be productive, but I wouldnt have too much faith in Ward doing the same. THe Steelers decision makes it pretty clear that they think he's finished and I wouldnt imagine Ward has the speed still to play outside the numbers. If he plays it will be inside as the slot man in all likelihood I would have thought


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    frostie500 wrote: »
    Whatever questions there are about how much Farrior has left in the tank, and I believe he still has the potential to play in the right system such as Denvers and be productive, but I wouldnt have too much faith in Ward doing the same. THe Steelers decision makes it pretty clear that they think he's finished and I wouldnt imagine Ward has the speed still to play outside the numbers. If he plays it will be inside as the slot man in all likelihood I would have thought

    He's an excellent blocker in a run heavy offence, is generally well behaved off the field and can provide a legitimate downfield threat at least to the extent that teams wont just double or triple up on thomas if thomas keeps developing at the rate he is. John Fox would love him, it's a signing i could actually see happening on that basis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    spiralism wrote: »
    He's an excellent blocker in a run heavy offence, is generally well behaved off the field and can provide a legitimate downfield threat at least to the extent that teams wont just double or triple up on thomas if thomas keeps developing at the rate he is. John Fox would love him, it's a signing i could actually see happening on that basis.

    I agree that Ward is the kind of player that can help any team in the league, the younger Steelers receivers raved about his help over the last few years, but I just dont think he is anything more than a number 3 for most teams now and to be honest if he's a three he has to cover kicks etc and I wouldnt be sure he's willing/capable of doing that these days. Id love to be proved wrong about Ward because I love watching him play but I cant help but think there's a reason the Steelers didnt even think of offering him a contract


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    frostie500 wrote: »
    I agree that Ward is the kind of player that can help any team in the league, the younger Steelers receivers raved about his help over the last few years, but I just dont think he is anything more than a number 3 for most teams now and to be honest if he's a three he has to cover kicks etc and I wouldnt be sure he's willing/capable of doing that these days. Id love to be proved wrong about Ward because I love watching him play but I cant help but think there's a reason the Steelers didnt even think of offering him a contract

    Our receiver corps, Thomas aside, is poor enough though so he could make an impact at 2 or even play slot with Decker on outside duty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    spiralism wrote: »
    Our receiver corps, Thomas aside, is poor enough though so he could make an impact at 2 or even play slot with Decker on outside duty.
    You'd be happy with Hines Ward as your No.2 receiver?!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    spiralism wrote: »
    His coverage skills are on the wane alright(he was never a ballhawk anyways, more a hard hitter) but he did provide a good tackling presence and was a better coverage safety than anyone else we had (except maybe Carter at a push), as evidenced in the sizeable chunk of games he missed. For a 38 year old we're getting good use out of him.

    Why not look to take the next step? It's not like last year, we may have won only 8 games but tell that to the Steelers and it was twice as many as the year before. We were in the divisional round of the playoffs after all, it's not rebuilding, just building.

    I have no doubt that there is 12 wins in this team and we could be well on our way to becoming a real presence in the AFC if we make the right moves this offseason and build on a great season from last year. Talking of getting younger at positions, LB the average age is quite young, no harm in having a vet presence. We cannot draft for every position of need right away, therefore there is no harm in bringing in proven talent and filling the gaps over time through good personnel decisions. Bringing in Ward and Farrior, for example, would mean we wouldn't have to worry about either position in the draft and could look at other areas of need like RB or the defensive backfield.


    The fact he's better than anyone you had is an indictment as to how bad you guys are at safety position. Been on the beers tonight? ;) 12 wins, come on now. We'll you'll need a QB to take the next step. Otherwise it'll be another 40 point lose in the divisional game. I don't think Ward would be a good move, he doesn't have the speed to stretch the field which is what you need with Tebow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭Syferus


    kmart6 wrote: »
    You'd be happy with Hines Ward as your No.2 receiver?!

    He'd surely be a #3 in that situation. It's actually a pretty good place for Ward and the team if they both understand it'll be as much about being a leader and mentor to the young receivers as being a play-maker.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    Well they wouldn't want to be giving him anymore than the veterans minimum!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    kmart6 wrote: »
    You'd be happy with Hines Ward as your No.2 receiver?!

    Happier than Eddie Royal, though to be fair him and Decker would be closely ran. I'd personally prefer someone like Vincent Jackson but i don't see it happening.
    The fact he's better than anyone you had is an indictment as to how bad you guys are at safety position. Been on the beers tonight? 12 wins, come on now. We'll you'll need a QB to take the next step. Otherwise it'll be another 40 point lose in the divisional game. I don't think Ward would be a good move, he doesn't have the speed to stretch the field which is what you need with Tebow.

    Yeah it's a ****ing mess back there but Carter could come around and this year's draft is a terrible safety class regardless. Champ will move over to FS at some point in a year or two as well.

    We won 8 games, 7-4 in last 11, with improvement and providing Manning doesn't end up in Kansas to dominate the AFC West for the next four years, of course 12 wins is possible. Don't be so patronising, we're not coming off a 4-12 year and losing by 45 points to yer mob this time around, i'd get it if that was the case but we knocked the previous superbowl runners-up out of the playoffs and were in the last 8, surely that deserves a bit of respect?

    Not even getting into that QB debate again but shipping forty points wasn't really down to the QB when we gave up 6 TDs in a ****ing half and the offensive line played so terribly that Tebow got the **** kicked out of him to such an extent he broke three ribs and punctured a lung.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    Surprise surprise.....

    Bears place franchise tag on Matt Forte
    The Bears have announced the placement of their franchise tag on running back Matt Forte.

    “Matt is an important part of our football team and we chose to utilize the franchise tag to ensure he remains a Bear,” Bears G.M. Phil Emery said in a team-issued release. “We believe in Matt as a player and a person. Our intention is to continue to work to find common ground and keep Matt as a member of the Chicago Bears in 2012 and beyond.”

    Forte, a second-round pick from Tulane in 2008, will be eligible for a one-year guaranteed salary in the neighborhood of $7.7 million. Unlike Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson, Forte likely won’t view the tag as a badge of honor. Forte has been pushing for a long-term deal, and he likely will hold out through the offseason, training camp, and the preseason, signing at the earliest a few days before Week One.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    spiralism wrote: »
    We won 8 games, 7-4 in last 11, with improvement and providing Manning doesn't end up in Kansas to dominate the AFC West for the next four years, of course 12 wins is possible. Don't be so patronising, we're not coming off a 4-12 year and losing by 45 points to yer mob this time around, i'd get it if that was the case but we knocked the previous superbowl runners-up out of the playoffs and were in the last 8, surely that deserves a bit of respect?

    Not even getting into that QB debate again but shipping forty points wasn't really down to the QB when we gave up 6 TDs in a ****ing half and the offensive line played so terribly that Tebow got the **** kicked out of him to such an extent he broke three ribs and punctured a lung.


    4 wins is also possible though. Doesnt deserve you guys to suddenly think you can win 12 games. Just look at the seahawks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    4 wins is also possible though. Doesnt deserve you guys to suddenly think you can win 12 games. Just look at the seahawks.

    Who were 7-9 with a far inferior quarterback to the year before? Same amount of wins as they had the past year. You really think we'll match the worst season in franchise ****ing history only two years after it, despite a massive rebuild to the point that we made a playoff run? Come off it, that's hater talk. I'd rate it quite a bit more likely that we pick up at least two more wins from last year than lose four.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,286 ✭✭✭OAOB


    I feel sorry for Forte in all this, he's a player who has definitely deserved a long term contract but is stuck with a team that doesn't appreciate him fully. He'll get paid well this year but he's at a position where he won't get too many big contracts and career ending injuries are a bigger risk than most other positions.

    I hope he stays healthy and gets a big contract next year and from a team other than the Bears, they haven't treated him fairly


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,317 ✭✭✭HigginsJ


    Forte will have alot to prove this year. He looked so good before injury but rb's are so cheap and easy to pick up that teams are slow to give them the big money.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,929 ✭✭✭JaMarcus Hustle


    I think you have to look at it from the Bears perspective - Forte is just coming off of a season ending MCL injury, a very delicate injury for a player like him. I don't think the Bears don't appreciate him - he was underpaid simply because he was on his rookie contract for a mid second round pick. For the Bears to commit to a big money, multi-year contract now would be very risky. Had he not been injured, I'm sure they would have taken care of him, but I think they're doing the right thing in tagging him and seeing how he looks this year. Forte is one of the more financially astute players in the NFL so I'm sure he understands this.


Advertisement