Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 i believe salaries effect the f-tag value, not the salary cap charge....... for instance, winfield woudn't even qualify as top 5 because he only made 600K in salary last year........his high cap charge is due to a roster bonus......... 304852[/snapback] No, he counts. I believe it's how much you made against your own team's salary cap, which means your salary plus your pro-rated bonus. Since AW's contract was an aberration because the Vikes had so much room, and he counted 12 million against their tag, it skewed the tag numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 In the book Patriot Reign Belichick described Clements as a guy who thought he was a better player than he was. As BillsFanForever pointed out, there will be someone out there who will overpay him. Look at Antoine Winfield's contract. "In 2004, the top two players in the NFL (salary cap numbers) were cornerbacks -- Antoine Winfield ($12,400,000) and Ty Law ($9,601,333). These cap numbers are higher than Brett Favre ($9,533,333) and Peyton Manning ($8,301,666)." - http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/cb That's just ridiculous. Before some team elevates Clements to that salary cap neighborhood, TD should trade him. If we use the resulting pick to take Mike Williams, we could get younger, better, and cheaper at possession WR by replacing Eric Moulds. We wouldn't get rid of Eric Moulds this year, because rookie WRs usually don't contribute much. But next year, we could take the aging Moulds off our books. 304708[/snapback] interesting comment from belichick, but i'd add that clements' game markedly improved last year (patriot reign came out the year before). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 No, he counts. I believe it's how much you made against your own team's salary cap, which means your salary plus your pro-rated bonus. Since AW's contract was an aberration because the Vikes had so much room, and he counted 12 million against their tag, it skewed the tag numbers. 304881[/snapback] i stand corrected.........i've always seen it stated as "an average of the top 5 salaries", but that obviously isn't the case after looking at the link you just posted (which ironically even states "The franchise number is the average of the top-five salaries" before listing salary + roster bonuses + prorated signing bonuses)...... given this info, it does appear the f-tag value for CB's will decrease in '06 because law, winfield, rolle, and likely surtain will drop off the list.........woodson's current value would put a bump in it, but that is only if he doesn't get traded over the next few weeks to a team that will work out a long-term contract with him........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 There is not a cornerback who ever played the game that deserves 1/8 of the salary cap of an NFL Football Team. 304780[/snapback] you shouldn't view this as a rule. it depends on the overall cap situation. if, for instance, you're $30 million under the cap and you really want a player, it's gonna be ok if that player ends up with an $12 million cap number for that year. it'll definitely go down as time passes -that's the nature of such contracts. mike williams, on the other hand, offers the reverse scenario - low early on, high late into the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 interesting comment from belichick, but i'd add that clements' game markedly improved last year (patriot reign came out the year before). 304885[/snapback] I was just going to post that same thing. When BB wrote that book, he was probably correct. But it isn't correct now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 There is not a cornerback who ever played the game that deserves 1/8 of the salary cap of an NFL Football Team. 304780[/snapback] Amen to that! While TD may come up with a HUGE contract fair to his value, another team will be more than happy to come up with something millions beyond that. TD will not overpay like all these other teams will. That's why Nate won't be here next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac_Man Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Even if the franchise number goes down a little, it'd still be a lot more than what Clements is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 How many Franchise and trade scenerios have been pulled off in the NFL, outside of the Peerless Price situation ? Can someone look that up for me ? People here speak like it happens several times a year. Didn't the Raiders just Franchise Woodsen and now owe him 10 Mil this year ? Where are all the trade offers ? 10 Mil for a CB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 How many Franchise and trade scenerios have been pulled off in the NFL, outside of the Peerless Price situation ? Can someone look that up for me ? People here speak like it happens several times a year. Didn't the Raiders just Franchise Woodsen and now owe him 10 Mil this year ? Where are all the trade offers ? 10 Mil for a CB ? 305043[/snapback] I agree. It is just assumed by many here that because TD pulled it off with Atlanta, that he can wave his magic wand and make it happen again. It just doesn't happen that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 How many Franchise and trade scenerios have been pulled off in the NFL, outside of the Peerless Price situation ? Can someone look that up for me ? People here speak like it happens several times a year. Didn't the Raiders just Franchise Woodsen and now owe him 10 Mil this year ? Where are all the trade offers ? 10 Mil for a CB ? 305043[/snapback] There are not many. A lot of factors have to fall in place. 1. You need a player coming off an excellent season. 2. You have to be willing to back up your bluff, meaning we will resign him if no one will trade for him what we think he is worth, and we will be happy to do so. You need us more than we need you. 3. You need at least one team who really needs a star player at that position and that has money. 4. You must let his agent try to work out a deal with another team that he will sign if the trade is made. 5. You must have a GM that is willing to play hardball. All of those happened with Peerless Price and all of those could possibly, perhaps easily, happen with Nate Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 How many Franchise and trade scenerios have been pulled off in the NFL, outside of the Peerless Price situation ? Can someone look that up for me ? People here speak like it happens several times a year. Didn't the Raiders just Franchise Woodsen and now owe him 10 Mil this year ? Where are all the trade offers ? 10 Mil for a CB ? 305043[/snapback] how about champ bailey? and how do you know the raiders don't have offers? maybe they're just waiting the league out looking to get the most value for woodson? it's funny how TD is appluaded for that approach, but the raiders are ridiculed for it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 how about champ bailey? and how do you know the raiders don't have offers? maybe they're just waiting the league out looking to get the most value for woodson? it's funny how TD is appluaded for that approach, but the raiders are ridiculed for it....... 305083[/snapback] Because the Raiders don't want to pay Woodson 10 million. They weren't willing to back up their bet. The Bills were. Even though it may not have made the fans happy, TD was willing to take Peerless back for one year if he didn't have any takers (even though he knew that the Falcons wanted PP and needed a speed receiver and PP wanted them). It wasn't a huge risk for TD because the worst case scenario was not all that bad. For the Raiders it kind of is, and they didn't have a ready-made taker for Woodson. Not to mention 10 mil is a completely different deal than the bills would have had to pay PP for one year (which, granted, would have been far too much for him but was still possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Because the Raiders don't want to pay Woodson 10 million. They weren't willing to back up their bet. The Bills were. Even though it may not have made the fans happy, TD was willing to take Peerless back for one year if he didn't have any takers (even though he knew that the Falcons wanted PP and needed a speed receiver and PP wanted them). It wasn't a huge risk for TD because the worst case scenario was not all that bad. For the Raiders it kind of is, and they didn't have a ready-made taker for Woodson. Not to mention 10 mil is a completely different deal than the bills would have had to pay PP for one year (which, granted, would have been far too much for him but was still possible). 305087[/snapback] i was referencing the henry situation.......TD can certainly let him come back for another year, but that is far from the ideal situation.........much like the raiders keeping woodson around for another year at his current price tag is far from the ideal situation.......but both can be accomplished........the bills can put up with henry's ball aching if they have to, and the raiders have the cap room to absorb the woodson cap number if they have to........ TD is staring down the cards (and potentially other teams) and is appluaded on this board daily.......how do we not know that the raiders are also staring down other teams? should they not be applauded for that as well, if that is the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 >>>the bills can put up with henry's ball aching if they have to<<< Was this a mixture of ball breaking and belly aching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 There are not many. A lot of factors have to fall in place. 1. You need a player coming off an excellent season. 2. You have to be willing to back up your bluff, meaning we will resign him if no one will trade for him what we think he is worth, and we will be happy to do so. You need us more than we need you. 3. You need at least one team who really needs a star player at that position and that has money. 4. You must let his agent try to work out a deal with another team that he will sign if the trade is made. 5. You must have a GM that is willing to play hardball. All of those happened with Peerless Price and all of those could possibly, perhaps easily, happen with Nate Clements. 305068[/snapback] Forgot to mention something that goes along with #4, The player has to be pissed that he got tagged and wants a new long term deal that offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 i was referencing the henry situation.......TD can certainly let him come back for another year, but that is far from the ideal situation.........much like the raiders keeping woodson around for another year at his current price tag is far from the ideal situation.......but both can be accomplished........the bills can put up with henry's ball aching if they have to, and the raiders have the cap room to absorb the woodson cap number if they have to........ TD is staring down the cards (and potentially other teams) and is appluaded on this board daily.......how do we not know that the raiders are also staring down other teams? should they not be applauded for that as well, if that is the case? 305105[/snapback] For me I guess it is because I don't believe that is the case, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of data to believe that is the case. In the Henry situation there does. If that is what the Raiders are doing, who is it they are trying to stare down? You can't just applaud something with zero infomation just because it may be happening behind closed doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I think TD plays the game of signing the best FA available that is not currently on the team. He robs Peter to pay Paul....he will let Pat Williams go..then sign an OG who fills another need, but leaves us needing a DT. We can get by with a 2nd or 3rd yr player. If that does not work, then next season we get a DT. He did this with R. Brown. He let him go, thinking that Pucillo and Villareal could do the job. That did not work, so he signed Gandy this off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Forgot to mention something that goes along with #4, The player has to be pissed that he got tagged and wants a new long term deal that offseason. 305122[/snapback] I don't think that matters much. Despite all the whining of the fans, I heard Peerless say he definitely would have come back to Buffalo if they franchised him. He wasn't going to cause trouble, he just had a tapeworm ego that needed to fed, and he wanted a ton of money to be paid him. Willis yesterday was blunt and honest, and I think faithfully represented what most of these guys think. If they pay me I love it here, if they don't I hate it here. And I don't really blame them as much as most do because I think the NFL and the teams and the management and the fans aren't any more loyal to the players than the players are to the NFL and the teams and the management and the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I don't think that matters much. Despite all the whining of the fans, I heard Peerless say he definitely would have come back to Buffalo if they franchised him. He wasn't going to cause trouble, he just had a tapeworm ego that needed to fed, and he wanted a ton of money to be paid him. Willis yesterday was blunt and honest, and I think faithfully represented what most of these guys think. If they pay me I love it here, if they don't I hate it here. And I don't really blame them as much as much do because I think the NFL and the teams and the management and the fans aren't any more loyal to the players than the players are to the NFL and the teams and the management and the fans. 305139[/snapback] I don't know if has an affect or not honestly, but correct me if i am wrong. Peerless said he would play here if he got franchised, then once he was franchised he was bitter and upset and shocked that he was. Seemed he did a little flippy floppy if i recall correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 For me I guess it is because I don't believe that is the case, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of data to believe that is the case. In the Henry situation there does. If that is what the Raiders are doing, who is it they are trying to stare down? You can't just applaud something with zero infomation just because it may be happening behind closed doors. 305133[/snapback] there are rumours they are talking to the saints about a deal involving darren howard..... i understand you don't think they have any significant offers on the table........i agree that they shouldn't be applauded as of yet (that's why i stated "shouldn't they be applauded for that as well, if that is the case?").......... but i also don't feel they should be ridiculed either with zero information that backs up the claim they have no offers on the table.......for all we know, they might have 10 offers.......and for all we know, they are playing this the exact same way TD is playing the travis situation......and if that it the case, it makes little sense to praise TD for playing that style but trash them for doing the exact same thing...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts