|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,586
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,586 |
I agree. Five years is half a career.
They are sticking to 5 right now to be sure the rookie cap amount is a little more in their favor..
We'll see a trade off....lower rookie pay, 4 year max.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
I agree. Five years is half a career.
They are sticking to 5 right now to be sure the rookie cap amount is a little more in their favor..
We'll see a trade off....lower rookie pay, 4 year max.
Updated: July 11, 2011, 12:42 PM ET
The same source added that the players have agreed to cut rookie compensation in half but won't agree to a deal that does not allow for the rookie class to become free agents at the end of four years.
The lone exception could relate to allowing a fifth year for quarterbacks who were drafted in the first round but their salary would have to be set at the average of the top-10 players at their position in year 5. The player source said that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones proposed such a solution but was shot down by his fellow owners.
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Looks like we might just see some football come August 13th or whenever Green Bay comes to town...
And that's all we ever wanted!!!!!!!!!!!
The right of first refusal is the issue that is perplexing to me. Shouldn't they have to up the ante as opposed to matching it?
I'm excited, I miss football.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Rookie Pool Negotiations Update
July 12, 2011, 6:36 PM ET
High-level sources on both sides of the talks say the debate in the rookie pool talks is over how to structure a fifth-year option for first-round draft picks.
Under current proposals, all first rounders would get four-year deals, plus an option year. That option could be executed by the team after the third or fourth year of the contract.
For example, per negotiations Friday, Cam Newton, the No. 1 overall pick by the Carolina Panthers in April's draft, would get four years at $22 million.
However, owners want a fixed amount for the fifth year option, roughly $4 million. Players want a top 10 salary at the position for the top 16 picks. They proposed a top 15 salary for picks 17 through 32 and then proposed top 20.
Then another proposal by the players was made, the sides had strong disagreements, and the NFLPA went back to the top 15 for those lower first-round picks.
The top 10 scenario would get Newton's deal to roughly $34 million or $36 million for five years, if the option is picked up.
Owners also talked about an escalator clause based on performance for the fifth year in addition to the fixed amount. Players want agents to negotiate that fifth year when they do the contract. Owners don't want agents negotiating that fifth year.
-- John Clayton, ESPN.com senior NFL writer.
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
It's crazy that the rookie scale is what is holding this up. Also, the rookie scale wouldn't even apply to us because we traded out of the top 10.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
Quote:
Rogers was fat, lazy, never practiced and just rarely played. Why anyone would want to pay him another 7 mil for 16 tackles is beyond me. Rogers, Winslow and Edwards are team cancers.
You have been harping on Taylor for his poor conditioning and now for the rumor of a foot injury which prevented him from missing zero games and he was barely able to play over 50 snaps a game. My God if he isn't careful they may have to amputate.
When it comes to the cap, we just happened to be in one of those periods where we have cap space. No Edwards, Winslow, Rogers, Corey Williams, JJ combined with very few free agents in last years class that was worth anything.
This years class should be loaded. We will be spending.
I agree we must spend wisely and i hope the rumor about the bad feet of taylor our DT is just that. the problem with dumping contracts is we got almost zilch in return for any of the players we "traded/released. Mangini slashed team salaries so we have a lot to spend. Dumping Rogers and probably Jake will create even more cap space. Spend WISELY.
throwing contracts at marginal players JAKE, PASHOS and then playing hardball with veterans of real merit(Vickers) is just not sound management. Of course we have had a keystone cops front office until Holmgren and his gang showed up...yet signing Pashos and Jake both made me spit up and the pronouncement we needed no veteran wrss were all laughable comments beyond the pale so the jury is still out as this is year THREE under new management.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
as this is year THREE under new management.
This explains it all... 
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874 |
Quote:
Quote:
as this is year THREE under new management.
This explains it all...
LOL Joe can't count.. But hey,, why quibble 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
then playing hardball with veterans of real merit(Vickers) is just not sound management.
EDit: Hillis, Hardesty and the rookie.
I think we have the position of FB covered well enough that further revenue allotted for the position could be considered bad management.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 07/17/11 06:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
then playing hardball with veterans of real merit(Vickers) is just not sound management.
EDit: Hillis, Hardesty and the rookie.
I think we have the position of FB covered well enough that further revenue allotted for the position could be considered bad management.
I hate to agree with Joe but I kind of have to here.
Hillis wore down last year just as the RB only. Doubling as FB would cut into his rest time wouldn't it?
Can't have faith in Hadesty with his injury history.
The rookie looks good from his college highlights but they were just that college highlights, he's unproven.
I don't think it would break the bank to bring back Vickers for 1 more year or 2 as insurance, and the guy wants to be here. But apparently the front office wants to go in another direction. That's fine with me, I trust them. But I'll always be here to 2nd guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
There is absolutely nothing that says that you have to agree 100% with every move the front office makes in order to "be a good fan".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I can envision both Hillis and Hardesty in the backfield together and they both have the skill sets I think to be interchangeable and then we Drafted a FB.
If anything I think we could use another HB type.
I like Vickers, but I just don't know if there is room on our roster for him and his 'new Contract'. New Contract being the key words here, but that's JMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,553
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,553 |
I hope Vickers is retained but if not so be it. Fullback is a dieing breed. Bring in the Turtle from Kentucky. Hell of fullback and he has good hands. Personally, I thought he was better than John Connor. Moncell Allen aka The Turtle
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
I hope Vickers is retained but if not so be it. Fullback is a dieing breed. Bring in the Turtle from Kentucky. Hell of fullback and he has good hands. Personally, I thought he was better than John Connor.
It is most certainly going to be a different breed then we are used to seeing with Dabol's offense.
Hillis is still going to be our bell cow and the thing that will help ease his burden will be an effective passing attack more so then another RB.
And I really hate taking this side of the Vickers debate, but taking off the orange colored classes I can speculate as to why he might not be back.
Vickers has certainly earned his pay day, but sadly I think he may have to go else were to get it.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 07/17/11 10:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,553
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,553 |
No fullback will ever receive what they are worth. It is all about supply and demand. Just about every college teams has a fullback in some capacity. I would be surprised if there was an average of 1 fullback per team in this league.
Seems like team after team is fazing out the position and using offensive linemen, defensive linemen, linebackers, tightends and anyone else they can find to be that fullback in short yardage situations. They may simply want him to test the market and let the market set his value.
Get Eric Wright locked up on the cheap while he is coming off of a bad year. 5 year 22 mil with about 8 mil coming in that 5th year and 5 mil in the 4th would put his cap number very workable and if you want to upgrade the position, you can do afford to do it and move him down the depth chart.
Even if Wright is signed, snatch up Brent Grimes from Atlanta. he could start opposite Joe, cover the slot, even play safety. Steal the falcons best defender and help the falcons to a terrible season.
I think the real question is which DE do we go after. One thing about Holmgren, he will go hard after a pass rusher. Ray Edwards seems the most likely but hey Charles Johnson can be had if you want to spend the cash.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
No fullback will ever receive what they are worth. It is all about supply and demand.
well, if there are plenty of relatively similar FBs out there (who tend not to last long because of the nature of the position), then they are worth less. so, they do indeed receive what they are worth. they are just not worth as much as other positions.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Dang ... can't find it now (anyone feel free to add it if you have it), but I want to say last year the number of reps where teams had 3 wr's on the field with a tight end was around 60 some % ....
in other words, even the power running teams who used a fullback didn't use him all the time, and some teams barely used one. As we shift to a league involving passing, precision, timing, and crisper routes, the days of the 260 pound wrecking ball is on the decline.
Not to say it won't go up again in a few years if a lot of teams change defensive philosophies to be about stopping the pass first ... but for now you don't really need a fullback.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
We need good players. He's a good player who provided a lot of the team's production on offense the past year and a half.
I don't care about the statistics of other teams. I care about "how are the Browns going to move the ball and score?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
And if you do have a fullback he better be able to do a ton of things. Special teams, block, catch the ball, run the ball, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Right and not disagreeing with either of you guys specifically. But I think the idea with a west coast offense is quick reads and passes. I don't know how shurmur wants to run this offense, but I don't even think he had a true "fullback" in their offense.
It is yet to be seen what we do (and I do like vickers by the way), but if we are running a system built on using 2 to 3 receivers and a true tight end in most formations (not to mention our athletic tight ends) ... then we will probably see a lot of single back action with a tight end acting like a wind back.
Can't say for sure though .. but it just comes back to he argument people have been having all year: can Vickers catch and can he add more value than another running back we could get?
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
I know that the 49ers had a true fullback way back in the day in Tom Rathman. He did everything (run, catch, block). Last year the Rams had a true fullback who could block, and that's about it, in Mike Karney. Holmgren always had a well-rounded fullback on his teams Harry Sydney, Edgar Bennett, and url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HendWi00hhtm]William Henderson[/url] with the Packers. And Mack Strong and Leonard Weaver with the Seahawks. Also, Heckert always had a fullback on his teams in Philadelphia ( Cecil Martin, Jon Ritchie, Thomas Tapeh, Josh Parry, Kyle Eckel, and Leonard Weaver. So I think it is safe to say, as long as these guys are running our team we will always have a true fullback on the roster. And if that fullback can catch that is an added bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Right - and I'm not against a fullback in general. However, some considered Hillis a fullback and I think it's safe to say he is a different player than hillis.
I'm not arguing against the type of fullback, I'm just saying if we are only putting a guy on the field in a system that *might* emphasize a lot of single back formations, then we need to have a guy who can catch and run.
That's unfortunately the argument about Vickers and I'm not bringing it up here because it's been beat enough.
The other point is if the NFL is a passing league and we are going to run a passing first philosophy ... Vickers might be important, but he might only see the field 30% of the snaps even IF we wouldn't have drafted marecic.
That's why I'm not saying he's bad or that we don't want him back ... but it just might not be optimal to bring him back if we would have to pay a lot of money on a fullback who only sees the field every couple of plays when we could just payd his money to a different player?
On a side note, i don't know what the average is for fullbacks right now - especially what it would cost for top fullbacks like vickers.
Karney had last signed a 3 year deal at $3.6 million. Weaver is set to make $2.5 million this and next year ...
meanwhile John Conner of the jets will only make $405k ...
I don't have all the answers on this one, but if Vickers doesn't fit our scheme ( a big if) then why pay him top money when we could be bringing in a younger fullback for less to learn the system and then use that money we saved on other players?
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
The other point is if the NFL is a passing league and we are going to run a passing first philosophy ... Vickers might be important, but he might only see the field 30% of the snaps even IF we wouldn't have drafted marecic.
I agree.
I can foresee Hillis and Hardesty in the back field at the same time once they are clicking on all cylinders.
One may be split out and the other would assume a single back formation. Not unlike we had with Mack and Byner.
The Rookie FB Marecic will see spot duty and hopefully be a demon on our ST units.
FB is not a need for us as the roster stands at the moment imo.
I would like to see us bring in another RB for insurance in the event that Hardesty is not ready or able to cut the mustard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Cap situations* Team Status Arizona $37.3 million under Atlanta $13.9 million under Baltimore $5.33 million under Buffalo $35.9 million under Carolina $30.6 million under Chicago $37. million under Cincinnati $35.9 million under Cleveland $33.3 million under Dallas $18.9 million OVER Denver $1 million under Detroit $16.6 million under Green Bay $62,600 under Houston $7.6 million under Indianapolis $2.7 million OVER Jacksonville $31.4 million under Kansas City $34.3 million under Miami $13.6 million under Minnesota $5.1 million OVER New England $7.57 million under New Orleans $11.7 million under N.Y. Giants $11.3 million OVER N.Y. Jets $1.2 million OVER Oakland $10 million OVER Philadelphia $13 million under Pittsburgh $10 million OVER San Diego $19.4 million under San Francisco $18.9 million under Seattle $39 million under St. Louis $35.6 million under Tampa Bay $59.2 million under Tennessee $10.3 million under Washington $10.6 million under *Does not include restricted free-agent tenders. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6786350/reggie-bush-potential-cap-casualties
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
It would seem to me that this does not include unsigned rookies? Without knowing how the rookie contract portion of the CBA would work out, it would be hard to include it in such a list.
If they guessed using last year's numbers, then teams could have extra room as rookies will make less this year than last.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Like most media reported lists during the offseason---- it is a crock of crap.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum New Cap...Where Teams Might
Stand...
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
