Clowney Franchise Tag

[ET80]

45 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

To be fair, this is @ET80 with a maxed charisma. Just maxed for him. It’s pretty middling for everyone else.

My charisma brought life to this world.

Literally; I have two kids... and it's not because of my looks.

[N4L]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

My charisma brought life to this world.

Literally; I have two kids... and it's not because of my looks.

so @Tyty and @Dome are your children? two swings, two misses

[KingOfNewYork]

6 hours ago, ET80 said:

I don't think they need to get rid of it, but it should be altered a bit - I like the idea of average of top five players regardless of position. So in essence, you're paying QB money to anyone you choose to tag.

I'd say another interesting add on? To use the tag, you have to give up the pick from the round you drafted the player if you don't have a deal in place before the draft. In the case of Clowney, tagging him would cost the Texans their 1st round pick, Lawrence would have cost the Cowboys their 2nd round pick, Frank Clark would cost the Seahawks their 2nd round pick, etc. That way, you have a pretty serious implication if you don't hammer out a new deal and/or trade the tagged player - in many cases, you lose a valuable pick. (In essence, do like most Fantasy keeper leagues). You have to be very judicious on who you tag, or enter into negotiations with pressure on the teams' side to get a deal done (which is exactly why nobody on the NFL side will go for it).

Poop or get off the pot, NFL front offices.

That’s interesting. Teams would be extremely hesitant to use the tag in both scenarios. 

QBs and some pass rushers would be tagged but I doubt they even consider it for other positions. 

[ET80]

1 hour ago, N4L said:

so @Tyty and @Dome are your children? two swings, two misses

... never said I was proud of the kids.

[amazingandre]

The entire reason for the tag is irrelevant these days IMO. Guys are loyal if you treat them with respect and offer fair compensation for their position. Holding them hostage by tagging them is ridiculous. Either you value Clowney and what he brings to the table or you don't, but forcing him to play on a 1 year deal is stupid and risky for both the team and the player. Not to mention it pisses fans off. Even if he shows up week 1, he will not be in playing shape and will waste valuable game time prepping himself. 

[Ty21]

2 hours ago, N4L said:

so @Tyty and @Dome are your children? two swings, two misses

Hey we have some of that ugly charisma too

[fretgod99]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:41 AM, ET80 said:

My charisma brought life to this world.

Literally; I have two kids... and it's not because of my looks.

*alcohol. Alcohol brought life into this world.

But at least Matthew Thomas Ryan had a good namesake, eh @pwny?

[Thelonebillsfan]

On 7/15/2019 at 8:49 PM, Boltstrikes said:

It’s called a Franchise player not a franchise position. I don’t care about emptying the owners pockets. Get them under contract. When players are under contract they can be fined for holding out. The Franchise tag takes away there chance to actually openly negotiate. It’s a travesty and needs to be eliminated optimally. Texans trying to be cheap with a little over a million is just another example of the abuse of the tag. 

I will never, ever, ever understand why people ever take ownerships side in these financial disputes.

Like why on earth should we as fans be happy that these people making money hand over fist thanks to us try and cheap out and nickel and dime every single opportunity they can just to wring out that teeny tiny bit more in net value when they're already so grotesquely wealthy that they'll never spend all the god damn money they have now in the first place.

It's $1.5 Million Dollars, I'm pretty sure the McNair family makes that in a day. So stupid, it's all just arbitrary bullcrap to keep salaries as low as possible.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 hours ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

I will never, ever, ever understand why people ever take ownerships side in these financial disputes.

Like why on earth should we as fans be happy that these people making money hand over fist thanks to us try and cheap out and nickel and dime every single opportunity they can just to wring out that teeny tiny bit more in net value when they're already so grotesquely wealthy that they'll never spend all the god damn money they have now in the first place.

It's $1.5 Million Dollars, I'm pretty sure the McNair family makes that in a day. So stupid, it's all just arbitrary bullcrap to keep salaries as low as possible.

I mean, you’re not wrong but I’m assuming they’re concerned more from a business perspective (as in rolling the cap space over).  Specifically for when Watson will need his extension.

I don’t agree with what they’re doing in this situation, but from a broader perspective teams can’t just hand out cash without discretion, just because they can.  It’s a business and they’ll run it as such.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, you’re not wrong but I’m assuming they’re concerned more from a business perspective (as in rolling the cap space over).  Specifically for when Watson will need his extension.

I don’t agree with what they’re doing in this situation, but from a broader perspective teams can’t just hand out cash without discretion, just because they can.  It’s a business and they’ll run it as such.

The salary cap is a self-imposed budget from ownership that teams do all they can to impose on themselves, not some magic number from the heavens. They could absolutely hand out the $1.5MM, but every 10 years they negotiate like hell to avoid having to do so.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The salary cap is a self-imposed budget from ownership that teams do all they can to impose on themselves, not some magic number from the heavens.

Agreed, but is that the sole purpose of the cap or does it also help create a balanced playing field?

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

They could absolutely hand out the $1.5MM, but every 10 years they negotiate like hell to avoid having to do so.

Not to many business hand out more money than they’re required to.

 

Again, I’m not agreeing with management/ownership/etc., in THIS case at all. That said, I also don’t think it’s a huge deal though as I’m assuming he’ll win his appeal and get his money.  

At the end of the day the team should have a little more forethought and act accordingly, but this is mostly just unnecessary posturing with no real perceived benefit.

[Superman(DH23)]

8 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The salary cap is a self-imposed budget from ownership that teams do all they can to impose on themselves, not some magic number from the heavens. They could absolutely hand out the $1.5MM, but every 10 years they negotiate like hell to avoid having to do so.

Theres more to it than that, yes the revenue sharing makes all teams financially viable, but the salary cap helps keep all teams on the same playing field.  If not.for the cap, the Cowboys could become the Yankees of the 90s outspending everyone else.  The Bears would be able to crush the rest of the NFCN every year simply bc of revenue streams.  You would create a haves/have not system and destroy the parity the league has worked so hard to create.  The hard salary cap is a big part of the reason why the NFL is the most popular and most profitable league.

[ramssuperbowl99]

16 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Agreed, but is that the sole purpose of the cap or does it also help create a balanced playing field?

Not to many business hand out more money than they’re required to.

 

Again, I’m not agreeing with management/ownership/etc., in THIS case at all. That said, I also don’t think it’s a huge deal though as I’m assuming he’ll win his appeal and get his money.  

At the end of the day the team should have a little more forethought and act accordingly, but this is mostly just unnecessary posturing with no real perceived benefit.

The sole purpose of the cap is to limit owner expenses on players. The NFL doesn't negotiate for a minimum required team payroll, that's something they begrudgingly accept when the union pushes for it. If this was actually about parity, they'd also truly want a hard floor.

Edited July 18, 2019 by ramssuperbowl99

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The sole purpose of the cap is to limit owner expenses on players. The NFL doesn't negotiate for a minimum required team payroll, that's something they begrudgingly accept when the union pushes for it. If this was actually about parity, they'd also truly want a hard floor.

I didn’t say it was only about parity and I’m sure not all of the owners wanted the cap.  I’m sure the ones in bigger markets, better revenues and deeper pockets wouldn’t mind buying rings, just like in other sports.

[ramssuperbowl99]

10 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I didn’t say it was only about parity and I’m sure not all of the owners wanted the cap.  I’m sure the ones in bigger markets, better revenues and deeper pockets wouldn’t mind buying rings, just like in other sports.

In the only recent uncapped year, only 2 owners went over what the cap was projected to be (Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder), and the other owners made sure the league punished them ruthlessly in the upcoming capped years as a result.

The owners absolutely want the salary cap. They negotiate like hell for it every single CBA, and try to make it as restrictive as possible. They'd lock the players out for trying to get rid of it. 

But then, in the years between CBA negotiations teams say "oh well we love the player, but the mystic salary cap from the salary cap gods means we won't pay him", and fans act like that isn't the teams' own doing entirely. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by ramssuperbowl99