hjnick
-
Posts
649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by hjnick
-
-
9 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
Except that it's not contract dispute problems. It's contract renewal problems. I don't have any problem with teams playing hardball with guys that hold out under contract. You sign it, you keep your word. You can ask for a raise, or a trade, and if they say no, they say no. The flip side of that is that the way the franchise tag exists now is part of the process that player agree to so I have limited sympathy for them when dealing with it now. I just don't like the heart of the issue which is that when the good faith contract expires, the team has a way of compelling the person to stay against their will. It's a massive bargaining chip for the team which leads to a lot of teams not even trying to work on deals for franchised players (which seems against the nature of the tag in the first place)
Right now a franchised player (correct me if I am wrong) can be signed away for two first round draft picks. That's a ridiculous price to pay, and I think the team gets a chance to match anyway. There's maybe 5 players worth that bounty in the NFL so teams are confident in their ability to franchise with limited risk of losing the player. Nobody is going to fork over two first for Jadaveon Clowney. If it was one first and a removal of the right to match (make it so the player can chose which offer he prefers) then I think teams will think twice about putting the tag on low A to B level stars.
I think it really comes down to this for me. The teams rights to a player should expire when the agreed upon contract expires. The franchise tag seems to give an additional right to the team over that player that doesn't seem fair to me. The above solution would still give the team some reward (a first round pick) but would increase the players freedom. Also, this would make teams work harder to meet their players at the negotiation table as it would remove the safety net of the tag.
My 2.0 pennies.
I was trying to talk more about what we would like for the rules to be as opposed to what the current rules are.
I think teams need to be able to 'franchise' a player to be able to get some kind of compensation for them. After that, I'm open to talk about what that franchise tag should look like. Are players able to go out an negotiate with other teams and try to get a new contract? Sure. Do teams get a chance to match the offer?
What should teams get as compensation? Maybe you make it based off of how much monetary compensation the franchise tag is placed on the player.
Maybe a 1st round pick is equivalent to the team agreed to pay the player an average of the top 10 players at that position.
Maybe a 1st and 3rd for avg of top 5
Maybe a 1st and 2nd for avg of top 3
Maybe 2 firsts for matching the top pay at that position.
And if they try to franchise the player again, they have to move up to the next level of compensation or if at the top, get an extra 10% on top? OR have it that a player can only be franchised once, then they become a free agent next year BUT the player has to actually play... (they cannot sit our or the year doesn't accrue).
---
I also like the idea of a one player exception, to a certain % of the cap, to help blunt the explosion of QB pay. There could also be a lot of rules around that. Maybe that exception can only go towards players that were drafted by the team...
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:
The tag should be converted to a Larry Bird's rights type deal.
If a player is tagged, the team can match the offer by paying a 10% higher wage but the salary only costs the amount of the matched offer against the cap.
This is a win for everyone. Players can test the market and get above market compensation. Teams can overpay to keep a star player but not destroy their cap.
Also teams should be allowed to trade cap space for players or draft picks. Why should a team like Seattle, be forced to dismantle their team just because they had a three year window of drafting very well. If they could have traded a first round pick for cap space they could have paid Sherman, Thomas, and Bennett in addition to paying Wilson and Wagner. A team should not be forced to go back into the draft to find talent when they already did.
Whoa! That's interesting.
-
12 hours ago, whatdrought said:
well yeah, players who are worth less would obviously like to get paid more. That doesn’t change the issue of players who are worth more being forced to play on one year deals. I don’t think it’s a huge issue, but it’s just always been surprising to me that the NFLPA doesn’t take more offense to it. Some of the more public happenings of tag issues lately may change that.
As I said in the op, even something like lowering the comp for a tagee to one first would make a huge difference. Imagine if Demarcus Lawrence was out there for 1 1. Tell me someone wouldn’t try for that and see if Dallas matches their offer. Make it more of a transition tag meets RFA type deal.
Do you get compensation if the player is signed away? IF you get compensation, then I think that's a good way to go.
-
16 hours ago, whatdrought said:
An interesting thought I had today, and a nice distraction from the worst time of the offseason, was wondering what kind of barter it would take on the behalf of the NFLPA to make the Franchise tag (at least how we know it) go away? I would be surprised if that wasn’t a big topic of consideration in the next CBA, but it’s hard to imagine the owners letting it go without something big in return...
Any thoughts on this?
i think at very least it needs to be radically changed. Make it a one and done, or make the compensation for a team to sign a franchise tagged player less (1 first, instead of 2) to make teams think twice about using it for big time players.
Teams need to have a way to get compensation or try to keep a player even though they are having contract dispute problems. I think the franchise tag is needed.
I think there should be a 1 player exception to the salary cap (like the Bird rule), that you could pay that person up to a certain % of the salary cap, but they do not count against the cap. That way it gives a way to pay QBs or other franchise players and it doesn't bust the bank. it will also help increase the pay for other positions. AND if you pay them above that % (like you pay them 30MIL, but the exception is up to 27MIL, then 'the over' does go against the cap.
-
15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
And why would this be such a bad thing? I know fans - particularly fans of a certain age - love the idea of a great player spending his entire career with one team. But is the NBA any worse off because Kevin Durant decided to take his talents to the Golden State? Because LeBron went from Cleveland to Miami to Cleveland to LA? Not that I can see.
Yes, would be a bad thing. I absolutely hate the NBA for all the whiny babies playing there.
I do not want to see 'super teams' in the NFL like the NBA. It would hurt the NFL product immensely. The beauty of the NFL is that there is so much parity that any team (within reason) can be competitive within 1-2 years.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
This is my prediction if he is there. I think they will use 3rd and 5th to get there
I don't mind trading up to get Q as long as we do not lose our 2nd. We are going to get a good player at 2...
-
3 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:
That Jones pick really sticks out. Seems a bit crazy, but he must have gotten some sniffs that the Giants really like Jones, and maybe a team like Cincy as well, maenaing the Giants have to take him at 6 if they want him. Who knows?
Supposedly, Jones has been rocketing up draft boards and there have been rumblings about Dwayne Haskins dropping.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JM57 said:
I've been "stanning" for Hockenson for a couple months now Beane's quote yesterday got me excited at first, where he was saying they grade tight ends 3 ways and I thought that really was good for Hockenson since he is both a very capable blocker and receiver.
However the more I've digested it I don't think he's the pick right now. That's just too obviously broadcasting your love for a guy, a la Doug Whaley.
This is the Beane quote that stood out to me..
"If your down at this level in the draft, let's just say you're at 25, and you have a guy that is on the top tier of your draft board. The first round, I divide it into three (tiers): top, middle and bottom. If you have a guy in the top tier, he's by himself up there and think he's a real impact - you're talking about a rare player at his position, that might be the time to do it. But you also have to consider what is the cost? Is the cost too much where it's going to effect the rest of your draft or potentially future drafts?"
Like it is has always been, it really depends on how Beane (and the staff) see Hock. If he's a Gronk style of player (all pro, good at all 3 phases), he will be considered for the 9th pick. Anything less than a Gronk style player and they will pass.
With that mock, I'd love for Buffalo to trade down to around 13 and Hock still might be there...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JerseyBills said:
I see Shady having a big bounce back year and a much bigger role in the pass game, where he can be an absolute nightmare to defenses.
Watching Gores film from last year, you'd think he was 7 years younger , he was fantastic really and as reliable as they come.
I forget if it was Gase or the Phins OC but when talking about Gore said " if Frank says he'll get that 5 yards for the 1st down , he's getting that 1st down . He's the most reliable back I've had the pleasure of coaching." I think Gore will be a surprisingly productive back and can step in and be the #1 if needed.
These OL brought in are maulers . The run game as a whole should be significantly improved. This offense has some firepower at WR too. Foster/Beasly/Brown/Zay is a nice , dangerous , deep group of WR .
Just think what this OL could do with the help of a top level TE that can block and create mismatches like Hock...
A set of 3 WR, 1 RB, and Hock... what are we going to do... run or pass?
-
20 minutes ago, Virgil said:
The Ravens are very open to trading back. Fielding offers.
Lost a lot of players and limited with picks after trading for Lamar.
Open for business. PM me
Sweet! Time for Buffalo to use their 2nd round pick to trade up into the bottom of the 1st....
-
1
-
1
-
-
Your score is: 31368 (GRADE: A-)
Your Picks:
Round 1 Pick 19 (TENN): TJ Hockenson, TE, Iowa (A-)
Round 2 Pick 8: Marquise Brown, WR, Oklahoma (A)
Round 2 Pick 19 (TENN): Yodny Cajuste, OT, West Virginia (A-)
Round 2 Pick 24 (N.E.): Chase Winovich, DE, Michigan (A-)
Round 2 Pick 32 (N.E.): Damien Harris, RB, Alabama (A)
Round 3 Pick 9 (N.E.): Amani Oruwariye, CB, Penn St. (A+)
Round 3 Pick 32 (WASH): Isaiah Buggs, DE/DT, Alabama (A+)
Round 4 Pick 10: Jaquan Johnson, SS, Miami (Fla.) (A+)
Round 4 Pick 29: Mecole Hardman, WR, Georgia (A+)
Round 5 Pick 9: Dru Samia, OG, Oklahoma (A+)
Round 5 Pick 20: Bobby Okereke, OLB/ILB, Stanford (A)
Round 6 Pick 8: Sheldrick Redwine, FS/CB, Miami (Fla.) (A+)
Round 7 Pick 11: Trey Pipkins, OT, Sioux Falls (A+)
Round 7 Pick 14: Alex Bars, OG, Notre Dame (A)
Your Future Picks:
2020 Round 1 Pick
2021 Round 1 PickI was trying to trade up in the 1st round in the mid-20's because there were still 3 DTs left, but I couldn't get a trade through.
-
10 hours ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:
I haven't really been around the last 2 months and I did see I made a post last month that was a little hazy. I'm not throwing a pity party or anything like that but I wanted to share because I didn't know if I would ever be back to do doing the little things in life like this. Almost a couple of months ago now, I really started to notice I was "losing time". I won't get into a lot of specifics, but some things happened and I am pretty much diagnosed with schizophrenia. There were some symptoms before that I just thought were kind of strange things that were happening, it's hard to explain it. But even worse, I don't know what happened during those times and whatever I did, I emptied out almost all of my savings. I'm in my 30's and basically have to start out financially where I was in my early 20's. All of this happened in a really short span after I had been incredibly blessed health-wise my entire life, and yeah, I thought of doing the worst. I thought about it real hard.
But I got some fight left in me. I feel better right now and medication seems to be working. I'm going to be OK. I may not ever have the life I had worked for and was driving towards, but I'll be OK. I'll be back at work soon and I'll start over. We can only do what we can do, right?
I guess the reason I wanted to share was I've really learned to be grateful for every moment and everything I do have. So I am grateful for this community, many of whom I've debated with. It wasn't too long ago that I also wanted to say I hope people don't take all of this stuff too seriously. It seems absolutely crazy now that just a few months ago I was actually mad about things I saw in a game. Or the Patriots winning.
At the end of the day, it's cool as ***** that we have a great community and I can walk into a Bills bar anywhere and instantly be family. And maybe one day we can actually win to make it a little sweeter.
With that, does anyone feel like going over some of the offseason highlights? I did see some of the players we signed and it looks like the O-line should be better, but I don't know most of the guys outside of Morse.
Dude! Sorry to hear about your troubles.
We go WR's so now we have a decent WR corp! Still need a WR1 though.
We tried to get Antonio Brown, didn't go anywhere, AB said "I'd never go to Buffalo!", team and city got trashed.
We got a great Center to anchor the line, signed I think 5 other 'journeymen' OLinemen and we will cobble a better line to protect Josh.
Who to draft or trade (up or down)??? That is the big debate now. If we stay at 9, do we take WR, OL, DL, TE????
-
16 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:
I think it just means that other teams know that Arizona has zero leverage. Teams know Arizona has to trade him and Rosen didn’t exactly light it up in his first year despite the circumstances. And the draft is 2 weeks away with potentially 4 first round QB’s. Might as well wait to see if your guy falls to you in the draft, and once Arizona takes Murray, Rosen’s trade value drops further. Could prevent teams from trading up for a QB as Rosen is the consolation prize if your guy doesn’t fall to you.
Arizona is in the same boat as Pittsburgh was in the whole Antonio Brown debacle. With AB forcing a trade and being a 5-alarm butthead, Pittsburgh could not get any of the true value of AB. Arizona has basically said they are taking Murray AND Rosen played like crap last year, currently there is not a lot of value they could get from Rosen because of this.
IMO, this is why the Giants traded Beckham (because of AB). The Giants saw all the problems Pittsburgh had moving AB, plus their compensation was nowhere close to what they should have gotten for him. So I think the Giants made a preemptive strike on Beckham and traded him before he became a headcase again and brought down his value.
-
1
-
-
In an act of defiance to all those QB needing teams that will NOT trade up for this pick... The Bills shoot the bird in their general direction and pick Kyler Murray.
We have to get the QB position right! How best to do that other than drafting a QB in the 1st Round in 2 successive drafts to make sure we get a winner!
We will then put them both of the field at the same time! Which one will get the ball??? Who knows!
Buffalo revolutionizes NFL offenses by having 2 QBs on the field at the same time!
-
I think a Gruden will win this battle.
Depending on how the draft goes, Washington could be total drama central with all the QB controversy... New QB in draft? Rosen? Smith hurt.
Would be best to save the Raiders for next year when they FINALLY move to Vegas and all the crap that surrounds that.
-
Buffalo will trade back TWICE and pick up additional 2nd round / 3rd round picks.
First trade with Wash back to 15. Get their 1st and 2nd round picks (at least) to do this.
Then trade with Oakland for the 24th pick and get their second round pick.
So we would then have the 24th, 35th, 40th, and 46th pick. 4 picks in the top 46.
Then we will get a DT, EDGE, OL, TE (or WR) with those 4 picks.
1 hour ago, DCOrange said:Is it bold to say that I think a WR will be taken in the top 10?
Somewhat... but RB is bolder...
-
With this a really deep draft, the Bills strategy should be to trade back twice and pick up additional 2nd round / 3rd round picks.
First trade with Wash back to 15. Get their 1st and 2nd round picks (at least) to do this.
Then trade with either Baltimore or Oakland. Again, optimally, we want to trade with Oakland and get their second round pick.
So we would then have the 24 or 27th pick, 35, 40, 46th pick. 4 picks in the top 46.
Then you can still get a DT, EDGE, OL, TE (or WR) with those 4 picks.
-
3 minutes ago, Lurker said:
I can see Green Bay trading up for Hock. He's be the perfect weapon for Rogers...
Well... If Hock is taken at 8... I guess we will have to settle for Oliver...
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
What if only one Quarterback goes? Still think we are definitely getting a shot at one of those three (not that I'd love the Taylor pick personally).
I see the first 8 position players off the board as: Bosa, Oliver, Q. Williams, Allen, White, Gary, Sweat and Taylor. To get one of those to drop we need Haskins (or Lock but that is unlikely in my mind) to go before our pick.
If only 1 QB goes before our pick, we will either take Hock or we will trade back. A team will want to jump in front of Denver to get a QB. Prob Wash to get Lock.
-
3 hours ago, Fan in Chicago said:
Draft Murray, keep Rosen and choose your savior after 10 months
This is probably the best thing to do because Rosen's value right now is terrible.
Give him the preseason to raise his stock as a backup and then trade him when a team really needs a QB.
-
4 hours ago, D521646 said:
I was thinking about this today, and was wondering why I haven't heard any buzz about the Cardinals possibly trading the No 1 overall, and running with Rosen, and taking a QB later in the first or maybe even next year.
So I ask, if your the GM of Arizona, would you trade out of the number one overall, stick with Rosen for at least another year, and scoop up all these draft picks to put weapons around Josh? Is one season enough to judge Rosen? Granted he was garbage last year, but how much of that was his OL, offensive weapons, and defense? I though TSW was pretty consensus on the idea that you can't judge accurately how a QB will be with just one year to his resume? Look at Goff, as an example.
I personally think the Cards are making a potentially huge mistake in letting Rosen walk after just one year. Oh, and before anyone says anything. No, I was a Josh Allen guy all the way, never waivered, except that one time in band camp, when I fell in love with Mayfield for a brief, but in a weakened state of mind.
Thoughts?
Tim-
Man, people thought/think Buffalo is bad.... Look at Arizona's braintrust...
1) Hired a terrible coach that couldn't win at Texas Tech.
2) Drafted a headcase in Rosen last year.
3) Going to waste the #1 pick in the draft on another QB (Murray).
4) Going to MAYBE get a 2nd round pick for Rosen after 1 year.
5) Murray is going to be a BUST!
-
Maybe the 4-3 would turn him into the rushing superstar he could be.
What sucks about Houston's 2018 schedule, Texas Tech was the best team they played... When I watched some of the tape from that game (not a professional here...), he had a decent push in the first quarter and into the second. After that, he looked gassed out and was not as productive for the rest of the game.
I know a lot of people really, really want Oliver (and he looks like a freak), but I really worry about him because I'd like more gametape against P5 lines and how he would have produced against them (more real tape against better competition).
Let's face it, Texas Tech's offensive line is not like Alabama's or Wisconsin's Oline and IMO Tech's Oline did a good job neutralizing him.
So how would he do against NFL lines?
-
2
-
-
On 4/7/2019 at 2:02 AM, Aussie Joe said:
The team moving up into the Top 10 should pay a premium... at least 20 per cent extra in my view but more if there is competition as you have alluded to was the case last year with the Bills..
The first issue is though that the Bills need to assess who is there first at 9... I think you take Oliver, if he is there..
I also can’t see the Giants passing on QB they like at 6 to move up again to 9 to take him.. take him at 6 then keep your other assets..
Raiders could be a chance though as they can take Williams or Allen at 4... then move up and perhaps offload Carr to another team for a pick..
If this is the case then the Raiders can hand over 24,27,35 for 9, 74.112.. there is your 20% premium..
The Bills are moving a long way down and need to be appropriately incentivised..
Whoa! Yeah, I'd love that trade...
-
21 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:
Trading back for Hock is risky. I'd take him at 9, that's fine. If he's gone give me Taylor. If Taylor is gone give me Jonah. If Jonah is gone, trade down for Marquise Brown or Noah Fant.
I agree it's risky we might lose Hock if we trade back, BUT to get an additional second in return would just be too good pass up and roll the dice. AND we will still get a great player at 15 if Hock is taken before.
SNY Jets determined to trade down
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Would the Jets really trade with us? I highly doubt it when that pick would be either Bosa or Josh Allen.