|
|
#21
07-17-2007, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
[ QUOTE ]
WTF are you talking about? You said 11 mil for 4 years then you quote a post that says 43 mil for 4 years. In what reality were you not way off? [/ QUOTE ] i thought i said $11 mil/yr for 4 years. oh well, i didn't. did you actually think i TRULY believed freeney was making $2.75 million a year for the next four years? that's so unbelievable that the first thing you should assume is that it was a mistake. unless you were just being an ass. 
|
|
#22
07-17-2007, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No one that is franchised should be pissed because they put it in the CBA [/ QUOTE ] This is a pretty stupid statement. [/ QUOTE ] no it's not. A player whining about being franchised is pretty dumb IMO. Generally he'll get a higher payday and will still be able to get a big contract the next offseason barring injury or him playing like complete crap. If they want to bitch about it, they should bitch to Gene Upshaw and their union leaders for putting in the clause in the first place [/ QUOTE ] First, the fact that the Union negotiated the cba doesn't mean that every individual player agrees with every part of it. Plenty of franchised players have legitimate reasons to be upset about being denied the ability to negotiate on the open market. They can and do bitch to Gene Upshaw but that doesn't mean they can't leverage a holdout to get a team to negotiate. Second, there is no guarantee that if you play out this year you will be able to sign a long term deal next year. Players can be franchised repeatedly, ask Walter Jones.
|
|
#23
07-17-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I just heard that Corey Redding just got 7 years for 49 million. I apologize, Briggs is absolutely worth 5 years 60 million if Redding is worth that. Though Briggs now can only sign his franchise tender now. But seriously, Corey Redding? How are the Jaguars going to keep John Henderson and Marcus Stroud happy when Redding gets that kind of money? Lions are a joke. [/ QUOTE ] Freeney's contract is way worse. As is all the cash doled out nowadays to offensive guards.
|
|
#24
07-17-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
the franchise tag is fair, and there are more success stories than failures. we just hear more from the players bitching. the josh browns are happy.
most of the time it does exactly what it's supposed to do -- give the team a longer time to negotiate with its star, and in the end they usually get a big contract from the team.
|
|
#25
07-17-2007, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
[ QUOTE ]
the franchise tag is fair, and there are more success stories than failures. we just hear more from the players bitching. the josh browns are happy. most of the time it does exactly what it's supposed to do -- give the team a longer time to negotiate with its star, and in the end they usually get a big contract from the team. [/ QUOTE ] Ya, and Josh Brown is *exactly* what was envisioned when the tag came into effect. The TAG sucks. The idea of it might be ok, but considering its main use nowadays is to hold players hostage, its outlived its usefulness. And to anyone who says, "You'd be unhappy making $9M/year?" If I make 30 over 3, hell yes I'd be pissed.
|
|
#26
07-17-2007, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
I hate Freeney's contract. I'm not sure if I am underestimate the importance of elite pass rushers. Does someone have a split of his tackles/sacks/pressures betweeen home/away? I feel like there is a huge disparity there, but I can't say for sure obviously. But, first franchising Redding was a mistake IMO then giving him this contract is even a bigger one.
I mean, would him having another monster year have forced the lions hand to giving him MORE money? I think that was the max contract he would have gotten either way. That way if he flops this year they would have protected themselves.
|
|
#27
07-17-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
As an alternative to the tags, what do you guys think about making re-signings count less against the cap than a new-to-team FA? Would this work?
|
|
#28
07-17-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
how many players actually hold out? this season only one who has been franchised (briggs) is supposed to hold out, and that may not even happen. players like brown and justin smith are the rule, not the exception. briggs is the exception.
|
|
#29
07-17-2007, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
Maybe it has something to do with their plans for the Tags/resignings next year? IN a vaccuum, it seems like a lot to me too. But I don't know [censored] about the Lions, errr, plan. hahahahaah. Plan. I said "plan" and "Lions." hahahahah.
|
|
#30
07-17-2007, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lance Briggs May Be in Camp?
[ QUOTE ]
And to anyone who says, "You'd be unhappy making $9M/year?" If I make 30 over 3, hell yes I'd be pissed. [/ QUOTE ] He's a RFA, he hasn't spent enough time in the league to earn the perk of having the ability to have his freedom. It seems to be part of all the sports. When he becomes a UFA then he can do what he wants, but pay your dues and live with it. Edit: I am teh horrible at teh grammer.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
