Jump to content
joewilly12

FREE AGENT NEWS

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Quick: Put a value on him. 

I say $10M.  Good backup with the outside potential to be a starting quality player.  That puts him above Fitzpatrick and McCown IMO.  The Garoppolo contract probably helps him, but the flame outs by Glennon and Osweiler hurt. I would go a bit higher, but not a crazy amount more.  He will get considerably more, considering Glennon at $18M and Osweiler $21M, probably around $20M.  It will be interesting. 

Unproven as he is should result in a deal heavy on incentives. Most other years that wouldn’t happen due to desperation and scarcity for QBs. This year not so much, though there’s often at least one GM who sees what he wants to see (and further, is too nervous to bet his career on a college QB).

I think $10m (give or take $2m) is fair. Maybe less as a base if he can double it or more with reasonable performance incentives are met. If he somehow tops out in the 4500yd/30td/65% range then NLTBE incentives that bump it to $20m+ sound totally reasonable on paper, even if unlikely to be offered or reached. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

Does anybody know why Hack is still on the team?  He literally has no value.  Bridgewater will be the backup plan.

All I can think of is a fear of him panning out for someone else. Only thing worse than swinging and missing on this pick so spectacularly is to swing and miss, then cut him, then he’s a serviceable (or better) starter for someone else. Irrational fear is the only rational reason I can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SenorGato said:

your widsom and perspective offered by moooore sanctimonious outrage

selfreflection2-m3o5ohahkoqs4h7nkwdxtj2b

  • Upvote 3
  • Thumb Down 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SenorGato said:

Dude, you moderate a football forum and are throwing your support behind a guy throwing a hissy fit over people talking football for several pages. Shane and I spent zero time treating each other like we were above or below the other and left on amicable terms - THAT should be a goal here. Not this phony ******* horsesh*t this guy is getting praised for pulling.

I'm throwing support and praise? I was just amused by one of his posts...then further amused by the irony of yours that followed, as you're arguably the last one to talk about keeping things about football. 

Lighten up, it's all good.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slats said:

I don't see the Giants or Rams being willing to trade all the way down from top 3 to #21 & 22. If the Bills want to get that far up, I think they'll have to trade into the low teens first, then make a second move. Even then, they'd be asking the Giants or Rams to give up on an elite prospect, be it Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, or -in the Giants' case- one of the QBs for themselves. Just don't see it. 

I could see the Broncos trading into either spot, or the Jets getting to #3 (the Giants won't trade with the Jets). 

It could get exciting early because I could definitely see the Browns taking Barkley #1, and then expecting Allen to still be there at #4. Trading for Tyrod gives them the room to develop Allen for at least half a year before playing him. 

Hard for us to see, since to outsiders like us it looks like perfect timing on their part. They know Eli best, and may feel - correctly or incorrectly - that he has another few years left in him at a high enough level for another ring (with a strong enough surrounding cast). Further, a new incoming GM saw the local and nationwide blowback just for benching Eli (granted the blowback was largely because he was benched for Geno not even Webb). He may not not want to be "the guy who dumped Eli, who then went on to win a SB with Denver/Arizona/etc., so he could draft [name of QB who ended up being a bust behind another sorry Giants OL]." Plus they further may see in Webb what Macc once saw in Hackenberg. Eye of the beholder and all that.

Now it's a pretty big "if" they're thinking along these lines, but if they are then it's not hard to further rationalize the team is better off surrounding Eli+Webb with 4 high pick prospects via trading down from #2, instead of dumping Eli and putting all their eggs in the basket of a rookie.

Like most, I really doubt this is what they're thinking. They surely know they can't simply time it at will, 1-3 years from now, when they'll have a #2 or similar overall pick with multiple, worthy QB prospects from which to choose, and another mulligan situation that screams "With such low team expectations for the upcoming season, now is an obvious time to make the move to the next era." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whodeawhodat said:

agree, another $2M per year for us in our cap position is worth not having a big hole at TE.  I see we have been linked to Ebron?  Maybe they would rather give him the $6-7M?  IDK

The extra $2m/year is going from $2m to $4m per, not from $4m to $6m.

$6m/year isn’t another $2m; it’s another $4m. Per year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dcat said:

from Day 1, the Jets offer was $4 million per year for 2 years.  

Which IMO already had the $2m premium built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dcat said:

not sure what "premium" yu speak of.  I had read that the Jets offer to ASJ  was $4 million per year for a 2 year deal.  Never anything else.  And now I'm reading that Mac is sticking to it.  I never read anything about $2 million per year.  At all.

That’s what was posted here a week or two ago. If I read it wrong then I take back giving Macc credit for the offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...