jahbonas Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 In many mock drafts Atlanta is choosing a LT with their late 1st rd pic (25th)..it makes much sense for the Falcons to acquire a proven LT for immediate impact and a guy who seems to want to retire a Falcon. A 25th pick would not be Jennings..but would certainly allow the Blls to move forward drafting perhaps a top Guard to block for Mcgahee or obviously an OT. I could not see this happening if Atlanta had finished out of the playoffs and holding a top 10 pick....but they are in the playoffs and have a 'lets win now' attitude' and the pick is much later. Also the new guy there Mora will not feel burned over the Peerless price deal..he was not there......any coach with clout would push for a proven LT over a rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 That's not a bad idea...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 why would we franchise a guy who isnt good enouph to be kept on our team??? who would give us a 1st rounder for him?? if he was that good, we would pay him and keep him. fact is he is injury prone and comes out of the game often. eather sign him or let him go and find a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 TD said he would not use a tag this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I would love to see this happen, though this time the Falcons are going to keep their mouth shut and avoid the fanfare they did with Price. Even if no one bites, the 1-year tender might be a good one to keep Jennings around and then provide sufficient time to hammer out a contract. I am more worried about Pat Williams. Based on reports he is seeking a 4M to 5M salary range. The fact that we got Adams to play at more in the 3M range, seems to indicate that TD is not going to pay 4-5M for a 32 year old DT who will be on a decline in a year or two. I think Greg Williams/Snyder are going to throw the 4-5M asking rate from PWs agent and he will be a washington Redskin next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 to do that, you have to have enough under the cap to accommodate the amount you'd have to spend if you kept a franchised player for that year. a franchised LT would probably cost about 7-8 million, which would put us right at the ceiling, BEFORE our tenders (and restructures) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahbonas Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 why would we franchise a guy who isnt good enouph to be kept on our team???who would give us a 1st rounder for him?? if he was that good, we would pay him and keep him. fact is he is injury prone and comes out of the game often. eather sign him or let him go and find a replacement. 195379[/snapback] According to your logic we never would have tagged & traded Peerless price..and would not have a #1 which turned into Willis Mcgahee. Jennings should be the top LT on the market and is young to play out a long 6 year deal......let the compensation be a #2 then if the market is not there for a #1 The key for this is to clear enough cap room to allow Jennings under our cap temporarily until the trade is made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 In many mock drafts Atlanta is choosing a LT with their late 1st rd pic (25th)..it makes much sense for the Falcons to acquire a proven LT for immediate impact and a guy who seems to want to retire a Falcon.A 25th pick would not be Jennings..but would certainly allow the Blls to move forward drafting perhaps a top Guard to block for Mcgahee or obviously an OT. I could not see this happening if Atlanta had finished out of the playoffs and holding a top 10 pick....but they are in the playoffs and have a 'lets win now' attitude' and the pick is much later. Also the new guy there Mora will not feel burned over the Peerless price deal..he was not there......any coach with clout would push for a proven LT over a rookie. 195371[/snapback] i said the same thing with winfield last year, and no one on this board was buying it, so i don't expect you'll find a favorable response in regards to jennings either.........we left a pick(s) on the table when winfield left and it will be the same story with jennings (if he does leave).......unfortunate because winfield proved last year there was a market for his services, and jennings will defantiely be sought after....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Is there a way we could place the transition tag on him instead of the franchise tag. That way we (or the team we trade him to) would only have to pay him the average top ten money rather than top 5 money. The only thing is I'm not sure you can use the transition tag that often, and because we used it 2 years ago with Peerless that option may be unavailable to us. Does anyone know, and if so how much would he be owed under the transition tag (average of the top ten LT salaries in the league I believe)? If this is an option I say go for it. there definitely would be a team to bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Is there a way we could place the transition tag on him instead of the franchise tag. That way we (or the team we trade him to) would only have to pay him the average top ten money rather than top 5 money. The only thing is I'm not sure you can use the transition tag that often, and because we used it 2 years ago with Peerless that option may be unavailable to us. Does anyone know, and if so how much would he be owed under the transition tag (average of the top ten LT salaries in the league I believe)? If this is an option I say go for it. there definitely would be a team to bite. 195440[/snapback] We used the Franchise Tag on Peerless Price. The Falcons negotiated the contract for Price and once the contract was set we were able to do a transfer of rights to the Falcons in xchange for the 1st pick. All this had to happen on the same day, otherwise we would have been hit with Prices contract and his signing bonus against our Cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 In many mock drafts Atlanta is choosing a LT with their late 1st rd pic (25th)..it makes much sense for the Falcons to acquire a proven LT for immediate impact and a guy who seems to want to retire a Falcon.A 25th pick would not be Jennings..but would certainly allow the Blls to move forward drafting perhaps a top Guard to block for Mcgahee or obviously an OT. I could not see this happening if Atlanta had finished out of the playoffs and holding a top 10 pick....but they are in the playoffs and have a 'lets win now' attitude' and the pick is much later. Also the new guy there Mora will not feel burned over the Peerless price deal..he was not there......any coach with clout would push for a proven LT over a rookie. 195371[/snapback] Despite what JJ might want, my guess is that he is not going to Atlanta. If Atlanta was to get a LT with the 25th pick, he would come with a far cheaper price tag than Jennings. Besides, Vick is left handed. Would they pay JJ huge money for him to play LT, or move him to the right? Also, with Vick being such a great runner/scrambler, the falcs probably need less pass protection than many other teams. Vick, imo, could use weapons more than he needs Jennings for 6 mil per season. You know where I think Jennings will go? You guessed it. Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsSouth Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 JJ won´t be tagged because it would cost a small fortune to do so. The average top 5 salaries for LTs in the NFL are too high, and would cause havoc to our salary cap. That´s why TD already said he won´t use the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 JJ won´t be tagged because it would cost a small fortune to do so. The average top 5 salaries for LTs in the NFL are too high, and would cause havoc to our salary cap. That´s why TD already said he won´t use the tag. 195663[/snapback] it would not cause "havoc" to our salary cap.......as long as moulds restructures there will be room available to sign PW and tag JJ........you have to remember it is a TEMPORARY MEASURE used to trade him, not to carry him at the f-tag value into the 2005 season........we're talking a week max, and if you can't work out a trade by then and need the cash to sign a free agent, no problem, you simply lift the tag and all you missed out on were the early, over-paid free agents.......i don't see us persuing any big name free agents anyway, so we can afford to tie up the cash if it means scoring a draft pick or two........ it's a no risk move....... and in response to another post regarding the t-tag, the bills do not have that available.......only the f-tag...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 it would not cause "havoc" to our salary cap.......as long as moulds restructures there will be room available to sign PW and tag JJ........you have to remember it is a TEMPORARY MEASURE used to trade him, not to carry him at the f-tag value into the 2005 season........we're talking a week max, and if you can't work out a trade by then and need the cash to sign a free agent, no problem, you simply lift the tag and all you missed out on were the early, over-paid free agents.......i don't see us persuing any big name free agents anyway, so we can afford to tie up the cash if it means scoring a draft pick or two........ it's a no risk move....... and in response to another post regarding the t-tag, the bills do not have that available.......only the f-tag...... 195709[/snapback] Each team can use one franchise tag and one transaction tag or choose to use two transaction tags, so Bills do have a transaction tag available this offseason if they don't use franchise tag at all. As for lifting the franchise tag or transaction tag, there is one scenario you didn't mention, which is that JJ can decide to sign the one-year contract after we tag him and cause "havoc" to our salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Each team can use one franchise tag and one transaction tag or choose to use two transaction tags, so Bills do have a transaction tag available this offseason if they don't use franchise tag at all. As for lifting the franchise tag or transaction tag, there is one scenario you didn't mention, which is that JJ can decide to sign the one-year contract after we tag him and cause "havoc" to our salary cap. 195738[/snapback] in reference to the t-tag, i think your incorrect.......i can't recall the player, but i believe the bills t-tagged someone quite some time ago and then subsequently signed him........as a result, even though that player was cut quite some time ago, they can't use the t-tag because they lost it for the length of that contract (i believe 6 years).......maybe someone remembers....... in reference to JJ signing the f-tag, why on earth would he do that? he's looking at 10 mil in signing bonus, so why would he take the f-tag offer in the first week of free agency?? people said the same thing about peerless, and he didn't........people said the same thing about winfield, and he got 12 million in signing bonus......sorry, not a chance JJ takes it.......it would be a dumb move on his part........like i said, no risk....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 in reference to the t-tag, i think your incorrect.......i can't recall the player, but i believe the bills t-tagged someone quite some time ago and then subsequently signed him........as a result, even though that player was cut quite some time ago, they can't use the t-tag because they lost it for the length of that contract (i believe 6 years).......maybe someone remembers....... in reference to JJ signing the f-tag, why on earth would he do that? he's looking at 10 mil in signing bonus, so why would he take the f-tag offer in the first week of free agency?? people said the same thing about peerless, and he didn't........people said the same thing about winfield, and he got 12 million in signing bonus......sorry, not a chance JJ takes it.......it would be a dumb move on his part........like i said, no risk....... 195757[/snapback] I think you may misunderstood my post. I know our transaction tag was used on Moulds several years ago and we can't use that tag before his contract is up. My point is that, each clue can use "one franchise tag and one transaction tag" or "two transaction tags". Therefore, if Bills don't use franchise tag at all, we'll have a transaction tag available this offseason. As for JJ, there's a possibility he signs the one-year contract. No matter what the chance you think it is, if he somehow chose to sign, we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I think you may misunderstood my post. I know our transaction tag was used on Moulds several years ago and we can't use that tag before his contract is up. My point is that, each clue can use "one franchise tag and one transaction tag" or "two transaction tags". Therefore, if Bills don't use franchise tag at all, we'll have a transaction tag available this offseason. As for JJ, there's a possibility he signs the one-year contract. No matter what the chance you think it is, if he somehow chose to sign, we're screwed. 195914[/snapback] i didn't misunderstand you, i just think your incorrect.......i don't believe the t-tag was used on moulds because it wasn't available the year he was scheduled for free agency either (he was signed before free agency anyway, so we didn't need to use the tag).......like i said, i can't recall the player, but i know we used it on someone and gave them a 6 year deal, thus removing our ability to use it for the length of the contract....... from an blurb last year regarding winfield's impending free agency: The cornerback's agent said it has nothing to do with the Bills that his client wants to test the market. Donahoe also said that the Bills do not plan on placing the franchise tag on him. That would keep him essentially off the open market. The team does not have any transition tags at its disposal. even if the bills wanted to use the t-tag last year, they couldn't.......i think that is the case again this year....... and i couldn't disagree more on the possibility of JJ taking the f-tag offer........name me one player who has done that that first week of free agency? good luck.......it doesn't happen........like i said, alot of people were scared of tagging price for the same reason and he didn't touch it.......same with winfield, and he obviously would have had no interest in taking it either.......not a chance JJ would take the offer -- he'd be throwing away millions of dollars doing so and would become the first tagged player in NFL history to sign it that early.......can you give me one reason why he would do something so stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts