SoFlaJets Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Kevin Faulk says Patriots made him an offer Posted by Michael David Smith on March 10, 2010 8:26 AM ET In yesterday's one-liners, we passed along a report that the Patriots hadn't extended a contract offer to running back Kevin Faulk, a free agent who has spent his entire 11-year career with New England. Faulk saw that report, and disputed it. "They have made me an offer, for the record," Faulk said in a text message to a Boston Herald reporter. But Faulk wouldn't say any more than that. It's possible that all the Patriots are offering Faulk is a contract with a league-minimum salary and nothing guaranteed, which would be an indication that the team thinks the 33-year-old Faulk is done, and all they're willing to give him is a chance to prove them wrong between now and the start of the regular season. On the other hand, although most 33-year-old running backs are done, Faulk played well enough in 2009 that there's every reason to believe he can contribute in 2010. Faulk played in 15 games last season, started seven, carried 62 times for 335 yards and caught 37 passes for 301 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 My two positions on the PP from a player's perspective: 1) If I want to get away from my old team, they're great because they gaurantee it. 2) If I want the most money and don't care where I get it, they're bad because if the offering team can put it in, they don't have to worry about being matched and can offer me less. Presumably the agent can always refuse to allow the PP into the contract but a signing team may be unwilling to waste time on a deal that doesn't include one then, knowing it can be matched unless they overpay. When all is said and done, I'm not a big fan of it since it pretty much defangs the whole concept of matching an offer. While I don't care one way or the other about maximizing players' pay, I think the NFLPA's position should actually be against them for reason #2 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 My two positions on the PP from a player's perspective: 1) If I want to get away from my old team, they're great because they gaurantee it. 2) If I want the most money and don't care where I get it, they're bad because if the offering team can put it in, they don't have to worry about being matched and can offer me less. Presumably the agent can always refuse to allow the PP into the contract but a signing team may be unwilling to waste time on a deal that doesn't include one then, knowing it can be matched unless they overpay. When all is said and done, I'm not a big fan of it since it pretty much defangs the whole concept of matching an offer. While I don't care one way or the other about maximizing players' pay, I think the NFLPA's position should actually be against them for reason #2 above. yeah i agree... i think a reasonable rule would be that no term can be in a contract that would not be physically possible for a player to reach on every team in the league. the poison pills regarding compensation would therefore be acceptable (i think hutchinson's PP was that if he wasn't the highest paid Olineman his entire contract would be guaranteed and since SEA had walter jones at the time who was making more than hutch they couldn't match) but the ones that read "if you play more than 4 games in cowboys stadium in a given year your entire contract becomes guaranteed" would be striken because the player could only obtain that term if he played for one team and thus has no value other than to c*ckblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Kevin Faulk says Patriots made him an offer Posted by Michael David Smith on March 10, 2010 8:26 AM ET In yesterday's one-liners, we passed along a report that the Patriots hadn't extended a contract offer to running back Kevin Faulk, a free agent who has spent his entire 11-year career with New England. Faulk saw that report, and disputed it. "They have made me an offer, for the record," Faulk said in a text message to a Boston Herald reporter. But Faulk wouldn't say any more than that. It's possible that all the Patriots are offering Faulk is a contract with a league-minimum salary and nothing guaranteed, which would be an indication that the team thinks the 33-year-old Faulk is done, and all they're willing to give him is a chance to prove them wrong between now and the start of the regular season. On the other hand, although most 33-year-old running backs are done, Faulk played well enough in 2009 that there's every reason to believe he can contribute in 2010. Faulk played in 15 games last season, started seven, carried 62 times for 335 yards and caught 37 passes for 301 yards. How would this be good news? This could be bad news. They could be letting Faulk go to make a play towards a younger player in Leon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 How would this be good news? This could be bad news. They could be letting Faulk go to make a play towards a younger player in Leon. good news b/c it would mean that if they re-signed Faulk they wouldn't need Leon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 good news b/c it would mean that if they re-signed Faulk they wouldn't need Leon They probably purposely low balled him. This can only point towards the Patriots being interested in Leon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 How would this be good news? This could be bad news. They could be letting Faulk go to make a play towards a younger player in Leon. I believe the Leon-Pats stuff is pure media/fan creation. Are we to believe that Belichick would be giving up not only a high draft pick but also a big longterm deal to a player who won't be able to pass a physical before the end of the RFA offersheet deadline? Belichick and the Pats aren't reckless with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I believe the Leon-Pats stuff is pure media/fan creation. Are we to believe that Belichick would be giving up not only a high draft pick but also a big longterm deal to a player who won't be able to pass a physical before the end of the RFA offersheet deadline? Belichick and the Pats aren't reckless with money. so do you smell a little Alvin Keels in this leak SMC? (yea me too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visajets Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Whats said and whats done is 2 different things---THIS IS THE JETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 keels is desperately trying to be drew rosenhaus but is failing miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 They probably purposely low balled him. This can only point towards the Patriots being interested in Leon. Really? It can't lead to the Pats being interested in Mike Bell or Ladanian Tomlinson or a RB they can pick up with one of their 3 2nd round picks? The only possible explanation is they are willing to give their top divisional rivals a 2nd round draft pick for a player who can't possibly pass a physical before the deadline to sign an RFA to an offer sheet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 keels is desperately trying to be drew rosenhaus but is failing miserably. I was waiting for a Leah Bodden report about him tripping down the steps as the deal was being signed. I always think about what the scene must have been like in Leon's house last year with his pregnant wife during the negotiations and what she must have been saying after he got hurt "I TOLD you, you see-you NEVER listen to me, I TOLD YOU you should have fired that MFer-I TOLD you he was no effin' good!!!!"-I know that's what it would have been like in this house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I was waiting for a Leah Bodden report about him tripping down the steps as the deal was being signed. I always think about what the scene must have been like in Leon's house last year with his pregnant wife during the negotiations and what she must have been saying after he got hurt "I TOLD you, you see-you NEVER listen to me, I TOLD YOU you should have fired that MFer-I TOLD you he was no effin' good!!!!"-I know that's what it would have been like in this house unbelieveable he still has a job after that. love leon but don't think he's the sharpest tool in the shed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.