2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 The franchise idea doesn't sound AWFUL but I feel like there's a downside I'm missing. Maybe it's just the $2m or so and inability to franchise anyone else though. If so it's not the worst I'd probably gamble at do the 5th year option though. Even if this year is rocky with injury I really struggle to see them just letting him walk Well the franchise tag would normally represent a 6th year of control after using the 5th year option, instead we're using it year 5. It's an interesting idea though to make a personality like Sammy prove it and play through a money year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Lee Evans, first 3 seasons: 178 catches, 2878 yards, 24 TDs, started 41 games, Sammy, first 3 seasons: 153 catches, 2459 yards, 17 TDs, started 37 games And while Evans had 1 season of Bledsoe, he also had 1.5 seasons of Losman and half a season of Kelly Holcomb. Seems pretty spot on to me .... Evans played 48 games in his first 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) Well the franchise tag would normally represent a 6th year of control after using the 5th year option, instead we're using it year 5. It's an interesting idea though to make a personality like Sammy prove it and play through a money year. Right. You'd basically be paying $2 - 3 million on a Sammy injury insurance policy by not picking up the 5th year option and using the franchise tag (IF he stays healthy) at the end of the year. But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know why you'd pay Sammy that WR franchise tag salary when you could instead sign any other free agent WR. You'd give up a comp pick for doing that, but you'd gain one by losing Sammy, right? I guess the only downside to that strategy is the old "it's tough to get in demand players to sign with Buffalo" theme, which may be true, but also has some notable exceptions (Mario Williams, anyone?) because in the end, money talks ... Evans played 48 games in his first 3 years I think I pulled the number of starts, not games played. But anyway ... the comparison holds pretty well, doesn't it? I don't want to relitigate old disputes, but this is kind of a pet peeve of mine. We always tend to downgrade the performance of former players - how could you ever compare the uber talented Sammy to that guy who ultimately did nothing for us, Lee Evans? Lee Evans was a damn good player! 13th overall pick, very dangerous and productive receiver who just didn't have staying power (but under modern rules, wouldn't have been under team control during that decline phase anyway). If anything, we should be disappointed that a higher draft pick (Sammy) isn't significantly outproducing Lee Evans ... Edited April 29, 2017 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) Right. You'd basically be paying $2 - 3 million on a Sammy injury insurance policy by not picking up the 5th year option and using the franchise tag (IF he stays healthy) at the end of the year. But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know why you'd pay Sammy that WR franchise tag salary when you could instead sign any other free agent WR. You'd give up a comp pick for doing that, but you'd gain one by losing Sammy, right? I guess the only downside to that strategy is the old "it's tough to get in demand players to sign with Buffalo" theme, which may be true, but also has some notable exceptions (Mario Williams, anyone?) because in the end, money talks ... I think I pulled the number of starts, not games played. But anyway ... the comparison holds pretty well, doesn't it? I don't want to relitigate old disputes, but this is kind of a pet peeve of mine. We always tend to downgrade the performance of former players - how could you ever compare the uber talented Sammy to that guy who ultimately did nothing for us, Lee Evans? Lee Evans was a damn good player! 13th overall pick, very dangerous and productive receiver who just didn't have staying power (but under modern rules, wouldn't have been under team control during that decline phase anyway). If anything, we should be disappointed that a higher draft pick (Sammy) isn't significantly outproducing Lee Evans ... it would indeed be harder to sign a good #1 WR in FA than it would be say, Mario... because WRs with options want to go where the QB and passing game is. Right now we don't know what that will look like in 2018 but it could be TT or a rookie, neither likely to be appealing to a FA who would need to sign behind the draft even happened. Sammy franchise tag isn't his choice. They could also dangle it and try to lock him up long term if he didn't want franchised. Edited April 29, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat Richie Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Really. If Vic says they won't the Bills will pick up the option You got to give Vic credit. He keeps on trying. He has to get something right sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Right. You'd basically be paying $2 - 3 million on a Sammy injury insurance policy by not picking up the 5th year option and using the franchise tag (IF he stays healthy) at the end of the year. But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know why you'd pay Sammy that WR franchise tag salary when you could instead sign any other free agent WR. You'd give up a comp pick for doing that, but you'd gain one by losing Sammy, right? I guess the only downside to that strategy is the old "it's tough to get in demand players to sign with Buffalo" theme, which may be true, but also has some notable exceptions (Mario Williams, anyone?) because in the end, money talks ... Just my take, I think that Sammy is a rare talent the equivalent of which can't be found in free agency. If he's durable he's a truly foundational piece. But we need better, more aggressive quarterback play to really see that talent shine through. He's virtually ALWAYS open but the QB just doesn't get him the ball enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 It doesn't matter that he has been injured. When you commit that much to a guy you have to stick with him. It shows that McDermott is running the show. No you don't. It's bad business to consider sunk cost in decision making. The only thing that matters is what he's worth right now. And I think a guaranteed franchise tag level payday for the season after the upcoming one, is not yet warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Just my take, I think that Sammy is a rare talent the equivalent of which can't be found in free agency. If he's durable he's a truly foundational piece. But we need better, more aggressive quarterback play to really see that talent shine through. He's virtually ALWAYS open but the QB just doesn't get him the ball enough. Terrelle Pryor had to take a 1-year deal given his injury history; there's a very good chance Sammy could be looking at the same thing if he misses any significant time this year. That's the risk in exercising the option and maybe grossly overpaying him next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Just my take, I think that Sammy is a rare talent the equivalent of which can't be found in free agency. If he's durable he's a truly foundational piece. But we need better, more aggressive quarterback play to really see that talent shine through. He's virtually ALWAYS open but the QB just doesn't get him the ball enough. Throwing to the sidelines to a team mate in street clothes will not advance the line of scrimmage 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 No you don't. It's bad business to consider sunk cost in decision making. The only thing that matters is what he's worth right now. And I think a guaranteed franchise tag level payday for the season after the upcoming one, is not yet warranted.i agree with the fact that they can't be handcuffed by the draft trade in how they handle the player moving forward. It doesn't matter anymore, it's over. You can only make try to make smart decisions on what you have in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) Terrelle Pryor had to take a 1-year deal given his injury history; there's a very good chance Sammy could be looking at the same thing if he misses any significant time this year. That's the risk in exercising the option and maybe grossly overpaying him next year. Also has any body considered his injury problems may just disappear in a contract year and we may see a better Sammy than we ever have? Edited April 29, 2017 by Over 28 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) Also has any body considered his injury problems may just disappear in a contract year and we'll probably see a better Sammy than we ever have?well that would be what the Bills are probably hoping for. My guess is they would have no problem paying the tag or a mega extension. Edited April 29, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 well that would be what the Bills are probably hoping for. My guess is they would have no problem paying the tag or a mega extension. And that's the beauty of the tag ... if he somehow stays healthy enough to be on the field for 15 or 16 games in his contract year, well, it's wash-rinse-repeat in his franchise tag year. A little incentive never hurts ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Tag him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) And that's the beauty of the tag ... if he somehow stays healthy enough to be on the field for 15 or 16 games in his contract year, well, it's wash-rinse-repeat in his franchise tag year. A little incentive never hurts ...agreed. As a fan, I want the extra year of control because I love the player. But it's not the smart move. And I do think of Whaley was calling the shots, he would feel compelled to do the 5th year because Sammy is his signature pick/trade. Too much emotion tied to it and wouldn't want the negative connotation of not picking it up. Edited April 29, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 I wish we would go ahead and pick up the 5th year. He's the best WR we have had since Moulds, injury history or not. It would also give us an extra year of control in the situation. I think that not picking up the option could be damaging in long term contract talks if it comes down to it. Hope I'm wrong, but I truly believe it would. I see Sammy's talent alone is justifiable enough for picking up the option. We have all seen it on the field when he is out there and actually targeted on a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat Richie Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Also has any body considered his injury problems may just disappear in a contract year and we may see a better Sammy than we ever have? Yes. I think it's a warning shot if this "report" has any truth to it. He either gets signed to a new contract or they turn him loose. Those are the only two options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 I wish we would go ahead and pick up the 5th year. He's the best WR we have had since Moulds, injury history or not. It would also give us an extra year of control in the situation. I think that not picking up the option could be damaging in long term contract talks if it comes down to it. Hope I'm wrong, but I truly believe it would. I see Sammy's talent alone is justifiable enough for picking up the option. We have all seen it on the field when he is out there and actually targeted on a consistent basis. But assuming Sammy has that monster season, the franchise tag option always gives the team a lot of leverage in contract negotiations/trade talks. I just don't worry about the pissing players off thing. Again, money tends to heal those emotional wounds ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Yes. I think it's a warning shot if this "report" has any truth to it. He either gets signed to a new contract or they turn him loose. Those are the only two options. Money solves all of this. If he balls this year offer him an extension, if he declines it tag him. If he only shows for half the season offer him a more reasonably priced extension of let him become someone else's Ferrari that's always in the shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 @fieldyates Per @FieldYates, Patriots have exercised their 5th-year option on WR Brandin Cooks. Locks him in through 2018. This was expected. Sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts