Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Espn insider:do not cut deangelo williams


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#31 GotSwag?

GotSwag?

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 15-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 789
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

I wouldnt cut DeAngelo either unless we really had to. Seems like we can get rid of Gamble and Gross and will be under the cap. It all depends on how the draft goes and who Gettleman targets in free agency.

I love DeAngelo, but I wouldnt be opposed to releasing him if it means signing a safety or a #2 WR. Stewart and Tolbert could handle the backfield, but if this happens..Id pick up a scat back to go along with these 2.

#32 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,063
  • Reputation: 1,993
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:19 AM

I am no cap genius by a long stretch of the imagination, but Stew's contract offers more value in that he is only guaranteed 23 mil over 5 years, with another 6 mil or so in bonuses depending on his production (all-purpose yards). Cutting Stew now would create a little more dead cap money (that must be paid) than D-Will's contract. Stew is the younger, stronger and faster back whose time is now, and when it comes time to resign him in five years, we can sign him to a reasonable contract in fitting with that time, or we let him go.

Someone who knows this stuff better, feel free to chime in.


I was not speaking of him retiring or being cut. Just looking at him from a trade standpoint.

What specifically would happen if someone wanted him in a trade?

#33 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 11,993
  • Reputation: 962
  • LocationLexington, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:32 AM

I was not speaking of him retiring or being cut. Just looking at him from a trade standpoint.

What specifically would happen if someone wanted him in a trade?


Same thing as him being cut, all guaranteed money would hit the cap. So it's really bad and his contract is horrible. It's such a bad contract it's funny.

#34 Stroupe-a-loop

Stroupe-a-loop

    Señor Member

  • Joined: 06-September 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,672
  • Reputation: 393
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:36 AM

Same thing as him being cut, all guaranteed money would hit the cap. So it's really bad and his contract is horrible. It's such a bad contract it's funny.


It's not that bad, you just can't straight up trade him or cut him a year after he signs. It's like if you had a reasonable monthly loan payment and you decided "fug it" and tried to pay the whole thing off at once with credit cards. Which is pretty stupid.

#35 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,315
  • Reputation: 2,931
  • LocationWITHIN MY MIND'S EYE
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:49 AM

I was not speaking of him retiring or being cut. Just looking at him from a trade standpoint.

What specifically would happen if someone wanted him in a trade?


Well, I suppose in theory they could take over the responsibility if all sides agreed, but then we'd have no Stew and an aging D-Will. It's a gamble, but could work.

Same thing as him being cut, all guaranteed money would hit the cap. So it's really bad and his contract is horrible. It's such a bad contract it's funny.


I don't know how Stew for 5-6 mil a year is such a horrible contract. There are backs of his caliber getting much more.

#36 Cape Fear Cat

Cape Fear Cat

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 831
  • Reputation: 284
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:54 AM

Before this season he missed two games in his entire career

Then he had both a high ankle and regular ankle sprain on the same play that essentially finished his season due to our record, I'm sure he would have been able to play had we been in the playoff hunt.


Don't get me wrong, I love Stewart. But the fact remains he has never had a season with us where there was not some nagging injury that he was dealing with. I just hate the thought of losing Deangelo. He has been an exemplary player and team mate, and having him in the queue with Stewart and Tolbert gives us a flexibility at the position that makes it easy to adjust to the injuries that seem to inevitably pop up.

#37 hepcat

hepcat

    Skandalouz

  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,089
  • Reputation: 1,812
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:57 AM

I don't think anyone would argue with keeping him if it was at the right price. But the sad truth is, he can probably get paid at least close to the salary he is getting now on a RB desperate team. Darkhorse team I see taking a run at him should he be cut....Atlanta.

#38 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 11,993
  • Reputation: 962
  • LocationLexington, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:07 AM

It's not the amount, it's how the contract is set up. Option bonus, guranteed salary in late years of the deal. With his injury issues adding guranteed money in latter parts of the deal is stupid.

#39 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 11,993
  • Reputation: 962
  • LocationLexington, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

Well, I suppose in theory they could take over the responsibility if all sides agreed, but then we'd have no Stew and an aging D-Will. It's a gamble, but could work.



I don't know how Stew for 5-6 mil a year is such a horrible contract. There are backs of his caliber getting much more.


Other team cant take on the sb's and so forth just base salary.

Also as I said in my other post its how its setup. His deal is high. Paid as a top 10 rb. His deal is pretty bad.

http://m.nfl.com/new...p1000000051054/





#40 iamhubby1

iamhubby1

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 13-June 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,675
  • Reputation: 1,122
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:21 AM

We need OL no doubt, but we still need every play maker we can keep!

My main problem is that since the contract it take DeAngelo 6 games to get into shape it seems.. He breaks zero tackles, accelerates slowly but then is a different guy toward the end. I just think he is a guy who naturally lays back too much and tou have to get on him early to get him to focus..hopefully(if he is on the roster) he does that from the start in 2013.


If we can keep DWill, I say keep him. He is still a homerun threat. You keep homerun threats. The team with the most/best playmakers usually wins.

And I do believe you are underestimating DWill. That's okay, most folks do. He is fast so folks don't see the power. Not run you over power. The power to run through arm tackles. The power to run away from hand grabs. The power to run up the middle and still break one off.

You need playmakers and DWill is still a playmaker.

And if quality RBs are so easy to find? Why are so many teams needing them? Everyone wants two, but most are lucky to have one.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users