Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: No Lance Briggs... « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

psymun

*
Starter
****
Posts : 987
Offline
: January 05, 2007, 02:31:02 PM

There's one reason I don't think Lance Briggs will or should be here...

Drew Rosenhaus


Booker Reese

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8069
Offline
#1 : January 05, 2007, 02:36:20 PM

huh? You just ruled out anybody who once played at Miami, and a lot of the best players in the NFL (in addition to those who didn't play for Miami).

He may be an a--, but the Bucs have worked with him before. Guy by the name of Warren Sapp ring a bell. Heck, Philip Buchanon is a Rosenhaus client. Should we let him walk?

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37083
Offline
#2 : January 05, 2007, 02:43:15 PM

There's one reason I don't think Lance Briggs will or should be here...

Drew Rosenhaus

Bruce Allen has worked with Drew before so I am not that concerned.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27600
Offline
#3 : January 05, 2007, 02:55:54 PM

Rosenhaus isn't that bad; it's the Postons you have to watch out for.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.



Guest
#4 : January 05, 2007, 02:57:21 PM

There's one reason I don't think Lance Briggs will or should be here...

Drew Rosenhaus

Whats wrong with Drew?

Lynch47

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2510
Offline
#5 : January 05, 2007, 03:26:55 PM

Ridiculous!!! heres hoping the Bucs sign him at 12:01 am the day free agency begins

Tampa Bay Todd

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9381
Offline
#6 : January 05, 2007, 03:32:07 PM

The situation that Gruden and Allen are in for next season, I don't think it would matter if Satan himself was Briggs' agent. If he can help the team improve and win, then Allen will be dialing that phone.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#7 : January 05, 2007, 03:33:06 PM

The situation that Gruden and Allen are in for next season, I don't think it would matter if Satan himself was Briggs' agent. If he can help the team improve and win, then Allen will be dialing that phone.

Yeah but no matter who the agent is he's gonna be putting on the ski mask when it comes to Briggs plus I've read CHI still has a tag to drop on him so that might be something else we have to deal with.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Booker Reese

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8069
Offline
#8 : January 05, 2007, 03:49:46 PM

Dalbuc - you mentioned the tag for Briggs and also for Freeney and Smith elsewhere. I can see where it's a possibility in the case of Smith and Briggs because of their teams cap, but unless I'm missing something about the cap, I can't see how it's a possibility for Freeney - the Colts are just too tight and the top 5 DEs have to be in the $8-10 million/year range right?

And while it's theoretical that the Bengals could franchise Smith, that seems like a lot of money for a guy who brings a career high 8.5 sacks to the table. That's a cheapskate franchise as well.

Briggs is interesting. It's in the Bears best interesting to tag Briggs, but I understand that there's a salary structure issue there that is the cause of the problems there - i.e., nobody gets paid like Urlacher. My understanding is that Briggs has been pretty frustrated with the Bears FO. I can't imagine the tag is going to make him happier.

You Got BUCd Up

***
Second String

Posts : 132
Offline
#9 : January 05, 2007, 03:50:11 PM

The situation that Gruden and Allen are in for next season, I don't think it would matter if Satan himself was Briggs' agent. If he can help the team improve and win, then Allen will be dialing that phone.

Yeah but no matter who the agent is he's gonna be putting on the ski mask when it comes to Briggs plus I've read CHI still has a tag to drop on him so that might be something else we have to deal with.

Drew "OMEN"haus...Ha Ha Ha

CHI will NOT tag Briggs...So on that note...Bucs better sign Briggs at 12:00:01 AM opening day of FA...




"People make themselves out to be idiots... I'm just here to help them realize it."

Hallelujah holla back...

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#10 : January 05, 2007, 03:56:28 PM

Dalbuc - you mentioned the tag for Briggs and also for Freeney and Smith elsewhere. I can see where it's a possibility in the case of Smith and Briggs because of their teams cap, but unless I'm missing something about the cap, I can't see how it's a possibility for Freeney - the Colts are just too tight and the top 5 DEs have to be in the $8-10 million/year range right?

And while it's theoretical that the Bengals could franchise Smith, that seems like a lot of money for a guy who brings a career high 8.5 sacks to the table. That's a cheapskate franchise as well.

Briggs is interesting. It's in the Bears best interesting to tag Briggs, but I understand that there's a salary structure issue there that is the cause of the problems there - i.e., nobody gets paid like Urlacher. My understanding is that Briggs has been pretty frustrated with the Bears FO. I can't imagine the tag is going to make him happier.

The thing with the tag this year that makes me wonder about people dropping it is that they'll be paying the current top 5 or 10 salaries. So they'll be able to use post-new TV deal money to create contracts still based on pre-new TV deal contract terms. GM's might look at all the money floating about out there and decide that while Smith isn't really a top 5 DE, the price of DE's in this new flush with money world orde ris gonna soar up so much that even the tag value reflects a good value.

Like I said, I'm not 100% on any of this but the amount of money out there is so big that I'm thinking people are gonna fear how salaries will skyrocket.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Booker Reese

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8069
Offline
#11 : January 05, 2007, 03:59:25 PM

That's a good point.

You Got BUCd Up

***
Second String

Posts : 132
Offline
#12 : January 05, 2007, 04:14:40 PM

Indeed...but an unhappy player = an unhappy locker room...an unhappy locker room = an unhappy team...an unhappy team = a long season ahead of them...Bears would be smart to just let him walk, IMHO...



"People make themselves out to be idiots... I'm just here to help them realize it."

Hallelujah holla back...

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
#13 : January 05, 2007, 04:26:25 PM

The thing with the tag this year that makes me wonder about people dropping it is that they'll be paying the current top 5 or 10 salaries. So they'll be able to use post-new TV deal money to create contracts still based on pre-new TV deal contract terms. GM's might look at all the money floating about out there and decide that while Smith isn't really a top 5 DE, the price of DE's in this new flush with money world orde ris gonna soar up so much that even the tag value reflects a good value.

Like I said, I'm not 100% on any of this but the amount of money out there is so big that I'm thinking people are gonna fear how salaries will skyrocket.

There is truth to that argument. However, applying the franchise tag, either exclusive or non-exclusive, only ensures the player will be part of your roster for one season. The "top 5 salaries" for exclusive franchise players and non-exclusive franchise players are actually calculated differently. Additionally, some players have really come to resent the franchise tag, and the team may fear alienating the player by applying it.

If they do apply it and then pay Briggs for one year as an exclusive franchise player, then he'll cost them a LOT more in 2008. And then Urlacher will most likely want his deal re-done. So consideration has to be given to those possibilities.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#14 : January 05, 2007, 04:48:49 PM


There is truth to that argument. However, applying the franchise tag, either exclusive or non-exclusive, only ensures the player will be part of your roster for one season. The "top 5 salaries" for exclusive franchise players and non-exclusive franchise players are actually calculated differently. Additionally, some players have really come to resent the franchise tag, and the team may fear alienating the player by applying it.

If they do apply it and then pay Briggs for one year as an exclusive franchise player, then he'll cost them a LOT more in 2008. And then Urlacher will most likely want his deal re-done. So consideration has to be given to those possibilities.

Right, you get the Walter Jones effect out in SEA where they just kept dropping a one year tender on him. It make the player crazy but obviously teams have done it.  You wonder with CHI if they aren't looking at a "window" thing and might be willing to risk it with Briggs.

I just think the whole dynamic of this off-season is gonna be very very odd because of the crazy amount of cap room so many teams have thanks to the TV deal and I'm not sure how it spins out when it all over. I hope as many of those guys hit the market as can but if you had any of those players I'd bet you fight really hard to not let them into this feeding frenzy.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: No Lance Briggs... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools