2009 NFL Training Camp and Preseason Thread.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by carom

That is really funny.

Im not sure how I feel about the franchise tag. It was easy to ridicule the move for the raiders when it moved a draft pick for an expiring contract. I myself forgot about the franchise tag and the implication that they really are getting Seymour on a 2 year deal.

Or three. Can't you franchise a player at least back-to-back years? I believe Charles Woodson was a Raider on a franchise tag for at least 2 possibly 3 seasons.

This was Skeletor's plan all along. If Seymour refuses to report, the Raiders can move to rescind the contract. If Seymour thinks he's going to walk back onto the Patriots, I doubt Belichick will be having any of that.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Or three. Can't you franchise a player at least back-to-back years? I believe Charles Woodson was a Raider on a franchise tag for at least 2 possibly 3 seasons.

This was Skeletor's plan all along. If Seymour refuses to report, the Raiders can move to rescind the contract. If Seymour thinks he's going to walk back onto the Patriots, I doubt Belichick will be having any of that.

Yeah, they can be franchised for multiple years.

Some players who have sat out when they were franchised only returned on agreement that they wouldn't be franchised again.

Can the deal be recinded if Seymour refuses to report, or would that have been needed to be written as a condition of the trade?

I'm wondering if Seymour isn't sitting out until the Raiders promise not to franchise him.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Yeah, they can be franchised for multiple years.

Some players who have sat out when they were franchised only returned on agreement that they wouldn't be franchised again.

Can the deal be recinded if Seymour refuses to report, or would that have been needed to be written as a condition of the trade?

I'm wondering if Seymour isn't sitting out until the Raiders promise not to franchise him.

I would imagine the deal can be rescinded. There have been reports of that being a possibility. Just in terms of equity, a 1st rounder can't be given up for nothing. Plus, I would assume that that type of clause is typical in agreements for player transactions.

If Seymour gets his promise, what's stopping the Raiders from simply franchising him anyways? If Seymour wants his payday, he'll get plenty through a franchise tag in a year that the NFL will be open season in terms of contracts.

Or perhaps, this will be the straw that shows Skeletor that players don't want to play for him anymore. You can't run a franchise like he has and continue to think players are going to flock to be apart of it.

I need a new team... and according to Rick Reilly, I qualify.

[Bobblehead]

There are 2 types of Franchise tags - an "exclusive", which is the average of the top 5 as of April in the year it is applied, or 120% current contract, whichever is higher; and "non-exclusive", , which is the average of the top 5 PREVIOUS to the year it is applied, or 120% current contract, whichever is higher.

In the non-exclusive the player can negotiate with other teams, but the team which owns his rights has the right to match, or if they don't it is 2 first round draft picks.

(I look those rules up every year) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

For a DE, the cost of a non-exclusive tag this season was almost $9 Million.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

There are 2 types of Franchise tags - an "exclusive", which is the average of the top 5 as of April in the year it is applied, or 120% current contract, whichever is higher; and "non-exclusive", , which is the average of the top 5 PREVIOUS to the year it is applied, or 120% current contract, whichever is higher.

In the non-exclusive the player can negotiate with other teams, but the team which owns his rights has the right to match, or if they don't it is 2 first round draft picks.

(I look those rules up every year) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

For a DE, the cost of a non-exclusive tag this season was almost $9 Million.

So at the very least, the Raiders are going to apply the non-exclusive franchise tag in order to recoup the first rounder they lost trading for him.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

So at the very least, the Raiders are going to apply the non-exclusive franchise tag in order to recoup the first rounder they lost trading for him.

Sure, but none of this is going to make it any easier to attract players. While in some cases the Franchise tag is just a way to keep the player while they hammer out a new contract, it seems that more often than not it is a way to keep a player from leaving, and I don't think that garners much good will. They are becoming the Edmonton of the NFL. Needing to over-pay or trade to get players there. Every poor team has issues, but add a poor reputation and you need to clean house. But in this case, it is the owner who is a major part of the issue, and that means Skeletor either needs to smarten up and/or step down.

I feel for ya, Raiders fans. Not enough to wish you well (or get within shiv distance), but it would be nice if it was players on the field that were the focus instead of the ones in the owners box.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Sure, but none of this is going to make it any easier to attract players. While in some cases the Franchise tag is just a way to keep the player while they hammer out a new contract, it seems that more often than not it is a way to keep a player from leaving, and I don't think that garners much good will. They are becoming the Edmonton of the NFL. Needing to over-pay or trade to get players there. Every poor team has issues, but add a poor reputation and you need to clean house. But in this case, it is the owner who is a major part of the issue, and that means Skeletor either needs to smarten up and/or step down.

I feel for ya, Raiders fans. Not enough to wish you well (or get within shiv distance), but it would be nice if it was players on the field that were the focus instead of the ones in the owners box.

Oh, I agree completely. If Skeletor uses the franchise as a "sword" to keep players in Silver & Black when they clearly don't want to be, he's further tarnishing his rep (if that's possible). I was more discussing how the Raiders will approach this issue and I think it'll be to hold the franchise tag over Seymour's head.

I don't blame you for wanting to keep your distance... I was sharpening my homemade shiv I made out of a toothbrush while I was reading your post.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Oh, I agree completely. If Skeletor uses the franchise as a "sword" to keep players in Silver & Black when they clearly don't want to be, he's further tarnishing his rep (if that's possible). I was more discussing how the Raiders will approach this issue and I think it'll be to hold the franchise tag over Seymour's head.

I don't blame you for wanting to keep your distance... I was sharpening my homemade shiv I made out of a toothbrush while I was reading your post.

A Raider fan with a toothbrush?

Nobody is going to believe that.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

A Raider fan with a toothbrush?

Nobody is going to believe that.

Oh ya! A Chiefs fan with a... uh... damn it.

*checks breath*

[transplant99]

One last blast of Favre before the season starts.

He talks about last year after his injury and how he was ecptive to sitting out, but the decision was made by others that he play. He then goes on to talk to his current teammates about the whole fiasco of the offseason and why he ended up returning for another season.

good news for Vike fans i would say.

"Absolutely. I was receptive to [sitting] last year," Favre told the New York Daily News. "When we finally did an MRI and found out I had a torn biceps last year, I felt like, with about four or five games left, that even though I was making some pretty good throws and some decent plays, I felt like I was doing the team more harm because I was missing on some throws."

Mangini, now the head coach of the Browns, said Favre's streak didn't affect his decision to keep him in the lineup last December.

"With that stretch there were things that we could've all done better," Mangini said on a conference call with Minnesota reporters. He added: "All the decisions that I made during that time period followed the same thing I believe, and that's playing the guys that I think are going to give us the best chance to win that week."

And...

"He gave his apologies for all the commotion that was caused, even though it might not have been intentional by him," tight end Visanthe Shiancoe said. "The frenzy, he apologized for the frenzy."

Reactions varied on whether it was necessary. Shiancoe said it was.

"There was questions on everybody's mind. I'm pretty sure it was different questions. He pretty much answered everybody's questions. Cleaned up everybody's wonders," Shiancoe said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4458557

[burn_baby_burn]

From a financial perspective this can't be a bad thing for Seymour. He is almost 30. His team that he has had great success doesn't want him anymore. If he gets franchised he will make really good money. If he gets franchised a second time he will be set for life. At this stage of his career, high one year guaranteed contracts seem like the best bet.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One last blast of Favre before the season starts.

He talks about last year after his injury and how he was ecptive to sitting out, but the decision was made by others that he play. He then goes on to talk to his current teammates about the whole fiasco of the offseason and why he ended up returning for another season.

good news for Vike fans i would say.

And then there's this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4462072

The NFL is looking into Brett Favre's remarks that he had a torn right biceps tendon last season even though he was not listed on the New York Jets' injury report, a league spokesman said in an e-mail.

In the past, teams have been fined anywhere between $10,000 and $25,000 for not being forthright on their injury reports, but the amount of the fine depends on the violation, and could exceed that range. A team never has lost a draft pick for violating the injury report guidelines.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And then there's this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4462072

Bah haha, I love it! Nice going Favre, you numbnuts.

And Mangini has got to be the most paranoid, sneaky coach of one time. He was probably one of those kids who had his own secret treehouse club no-one could find, where they all had secret handshakes and talked in code. Dude makes Bobby Fischer in his reclining years look relaxed.