Possible Franchise Tags - Page 5

PalmerToCJ · 02-18-2008, 12:38 PM

VERY glad to see Andrews get it and not Smith. Andrews is a monster that's still developing and is extremely versatile. We've had some good lineman here the past few years but I've never seen anyone physically dominate the way he can.

bored of education · 02-18-2008, 12:59 PM

Andrews is a beast, I like that move by the Bungles

SaintsFanForLife · 02-18-2008, 01:26 PM

I think its a good move great player.

vidae · 02-18-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Jared Allen is a lock to be franchised

Like I said in another thread, I could have sworn I heard or read somewhere that he does not want to be franchised, that he wants a long term deal, and if we were to franchise him this year he would not resign with the team the following year.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read it -somewhere-

skinzzfan25 · 02-18-2008, 01:50 PM

I'd love Justin Smith to come to the Skins if the price was right.

I think he would be a nice compliment to Andre Carter at LDE.

SaintsFanForLife · 02-18-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinzzfan25

I'd love Justin Smith to come to the Skins if the price was right.

I think he would be a nice compliment to Andre Carter at LDE.

That would be a good move you guys need help on that D-LINE.

bearsfan_51 · 02-18-2008, 01:57 PM

Meh...I know that the franchise tag is probably just a preventive move in the Bengals case, but that's a lot of money for a right tackle, and not an exceptionally good one at that.

If I was a Bengals fan I'd be happy though, it's not your money and it's not like Mike Brown is known for throwing cash around.

PalmerToCJ · 02-18-2008, 02:02 PM

Andrews is 26 and still has a ton of upside. He'll get guard money but can play tackle. He was the one player I felt we couldn't let walk that was a FA this offseason. He's important to our immediate success and future, he's of added importance because he's protecting what we're built around. I'd rather see him locked up long term but it's better than letting him go, he would've had a chance at stupid money in FA.

And again, thank god it wasn't Justin Smith.

bearsfan_51 · 02-18-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerToCJ

Andrews is 26 and still has a ton of upside. He'll get guard money but can play tackle. He was the one player I felt we couldn't let walk that was a FA this offseason. He's important to our immediate success and future, he's of added importance because he's protecting what we're built around. I'd rather see him locked up long term but it's better than letting him go, he would've had a chance at stupid money in FA.

And again, thank god it wasn't Justin Smith.

What do you mean by guard money? The franchise tag is for offensive lineman, so he'll get the average of the top 5 left tackles in the NFL. I would guess (being lazy) that it's probably somewhere around 10 million.

Again, it's not a bad move, but in thinking of right tackles tagged, I'd take Jordan Gross over Andrews.

RAZERSAINTS · 02-18-2008, 02:45 PM

It was good move but alot of money.

Scotty D · 02-18-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

What do you mean by guard money? The franchise tag is for offensive lineman, so he'll get the average of the top 5 left tackles in the NFL. I would guess (being lazy) that it's probably somewhere around 10 million.

Again, it's not a bad move, but in thinking of right tackles tagged, I'd take Jordan Gross over Andrews.

7.5 million. Top guard money.

LonghornsLegend · 02-18-2008, 02:51 PM

Im still wondering if we tag Flozell or not, heard rumors earlier, but nothing since.

PalmerToCJ · 02-18-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

What do you mean by guard money? The franchise tag is for offensive lineman, so he'll get the average of the top 5 left tackles in the NFL. I would guess (being lazy) that it's probably somewhere around 10 million.

Again, it's not a bad move, but in thinking of right tackles tagged, I'd take Jordan Gross over Andrews.

Ok... I misunderstood. I thought they listed tackles seperate. With that said, I completely agree about Gross.

Thinking ahead it would seem possible that this move is to keep Levi at LT and Willie at RT, then cut Bobbie Williams and move Andrews to start at RG and the first backup to RT. Then the right side of the line would just be a huge chunk of meat to run at.

I know we're building around the line and have two very good tackles but 17% of the salaries is tied up in Andrews/Jones/Anderson.

bearsfan_51 · 02-18-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty D

7.5 million. Top guard money.

Umm...there's no such thing. You can't tag a player as a guard, it's all under offensive lineman. That's why the Seahawks didn't tag Steve Hutchison.

Geo · 02-18-2008, 03:52 PM

I think what he means is that that is the same cost paid (per year average) to coveted free agent guards nowadays.

The Seahawks should have used the franchise tag on Hutchinson, but they instead opted for the miserable transition tag (which ticked off the Walrus to no end) which doesn't require compensation if a player signs another team's offer sheet (Minny in this case). Maybe they were saving the tag for Alexander, but I think they reached a long-term deal before free agency.

themaninblack · 02-18-2008, 04:24 PM

im really happy we are keeping andrews even for that money. IMO he could end up being one of the best in the league in a few years. i made it a point to watch him a ton this season and he is an animal. he is still a bit raw but has all the tools to be dominate. his athleticism is really surprising as well.

Splat · 02-18-2008, 07:28 PM

Chiefs franchise tag DE Allen.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...o&confirm=true

"If I play under the franchise tag, this will be my last year with the Chiefs," Allen told NFL.com at the Pro Bowl. "I would like to be a part of (the team) but there is a business aspect of this, too."

They left out the part of his quote when he said he would be fine with the tag as long as a long term deal was in place before the first game of the 08' season. If a deal is not worked out I believe the Chiefs would have to tag him next year as well if they want to keep him Allen is not tha kinda guy to back down from what he said.

Bills2083 · 02-18-2008, 09:08 PM

^lol, ESPNews has that story about Allen as breaking news.

Scotty D · 02-18-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splat420

Chiefs franchise tag DE Allen.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...o&confirm=true

"If I play under the franchise tag, this will be my last year with the Chiefs," Allen told NFL.com at the Pro Bowl. "I would like to be a part of (the team) but there is a business aspect of this, too."

They left out the part of his quote when he said he would be fine with the tag as long as a long term deal was in place before the first game of the 08' season. If a deal is not worked out I believe the Chiefs would have to tag him next year as well if they want to keep him Allen is not tha kinda guy to back down from what he said.

He should have a few drinks to celebrate.

vidae · 02-19-2008, 01:22 AM

This is upsetting. He seems like a man of his word.

And maybe I'm missing something that you can enlighten me on, but if they want to have a deal done before the first game in 08, why not just get it worked out now and sign him for the long term? He is our best defensive player by far. I guess I don't understand the downside to locking him up for another 3-5 years.

bearsfan_51 · 02-19-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae-KC

This is upsetting. He seems like a man of his word.

And maybe I'm missing something that you can enlighten me on, but if they want to have a deal done before the first game in 08, why not just get it worked out now and sign him for the long term? He is our best defensive player by far. I guess I don't understand the downside to locking him up for another 3-5 years.

Probably because it would be for another 7-8, and something to the tune of 30-35 million up front.

You're out of your mind if you think one of the best DE's in the country is going to sign a 3-4 year deal.

vidae · 02-19-2008, 02:34 AM

3-4 year is ballpark, whatever, longer. That's not the point.

The point is, a player of his caliber should be locked up long term. Especially one that means as much to our defense as he does. That's all I meant. It's late so 3-4 years is not really what I had in mind, just saying.

OzTitan · 02-19-2008, 06:17 AM

Don't be discouraged. Has any franchised or obviously-going-to-be-franchised player worked out a new deal yet this offseason? A few will, it just takes time. Teams are more busy right now working deals with their UFA's who aren't being tagged. They have until July 15th or so to work out a deal with a franchised player, but only until March 1st for other UFA's. Guys like Allen, Haynesworth, Asomugha etc will probably see new deals, there's just no rush to do anything now when the deadline for them isn't for months. It's a more economical use of time to start serious negotiations with them after the crazyness of free agency and your own UFA's has subsided.

Splat · 02-19-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae-KC

This is upsetting. He seems like a man of his word.

And maybe I'm missing something that you can enlighten me on, but if they want to have a deal done before the first game in 08, why not just get it worked out now and sign him for the long term? He is our best defensive player by far. I guess I don't understand the downside to locking him up for another 3-5 years.

The tag just gives us more time to work on a deal teams do it every year.

bored of education · 02-19-2008, 09:17 AM

It is not horrible. Allen is def a top 5 DE in the game and hasnt reached his potential yet. I hope he has a better season this year than he did last year. He was missing in about 3-4 games where he had no QB pressures or sacks. Plus he was missing a couple games via suspension. So hopefully this year is his breakout year.