Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

long term deal for hardy was never in the plans

nosuchthingasapanther

Recommended Posts

LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

I don't understand why we franchised him if we didn't plan to sign him long term or try to trade him. Everyone points to the RB contracts and Beason as limiting our cap mobility, but that Hardy tag is HUGE this year. We may just be setting ourselves up to get Julius'd again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ladypanther Grand Master

ladypanther

Posted
Posted

I don't understand why we franchised him if we didn't plan to sign him long term or try to trade him. Everyone points to the RB contracts and Beason as limiting our cap mobility, but that Hardy tag is HUGE this year. We may just be setting ourselves up to get Julius'd again.

 

I am sure the Boston Boss has a plan.  No worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't understand why we franchised him if we didn't plan to sign him long term or try to trade him. Everyone points to the RB contracts and Beason as limiting our cap mobility, but that Hardy tag is HUGE this year. We may just be setting ourselves up to get Julius'd again.

the entire secondary is being overhauled. keep the line as is even if it is at a premium to minimize the damage to one of the best defenses in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hepcat Grand Master

hepcat

Posted
Posted

I don't understand why we franchised him if we didn't plan to sign him long term or try to trade him. Everyone points to the RB contracts and Beason as limiting our cap mobility, but that Hardy tag is HUGE this year. We may just be setting ourselves up to get Julius'd again.

 

Consider it a one year rental while they train a replacement.  They were stoked to get Kony Ealy.  We've seen the negative effects of what big long term deals can do to a team if they don't pan out.  Hardy is still pretty young and has a handful of good seasons ahead of him if he stays out of trouble, but is it worth the risk/price?  NFL teams are pretty fluid...you have to have guys waiting in the wings at all positions to stay competitive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

the entire secondary is being overhauled. keep the line as is even if it is at a premium to minimize the damage to one of the best defenses in the league.

 

Might have been able to improve that secondary quite a bit with that $13M though.  Or how about the OL?  Or the WR corps?

 

I just don't see the end game of franchising Hardy if he's not in the long-term plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Might have been able to improve that secondary quite a bit with that $13M though.  Or how about the OL?  Or the WR corps?

 

I just don't see the end game of franchising Hardy if he's not in the long-term plans.

continuity can be just as or even more effective than throwing money at outside big names to fix holes.

based on what the team is trying to do overall, it makes sense...even if we as fans don't agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

continuity can be just as or even more effective than throwing money at outside big names to fix holes.

based on what the team is trying to do overall, it makes sense...even if we as fans don't agree with it.

 

If we have another winning season and playoff berth, then I'll say it was worth it.  If history repeats itself and we fail to have our first consecutive winning seasons, then I'll still be saying that Hardy tag was a big reason as to why.  I was onboard with the Hardy signing when I thought it was just buying us time to negotiate a long-term deal.  Then again, maybe that was our plan and that got changed by Hardy's little stunt.  It's easy to say that had no impact, but we can't know that for sure.  We certainly were trying to negotiate long-term prior to tagging him, so I'm not buying this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WCUcats Newbie

WCUcats

Posted
Posted

Meh, the franchise tag keeps him hungry for a big payday next season, and gives him incentive to play hard. Let some other team throw big money at him next season and watch him implode after it goes to his head. ( I. e. the raiders)

You don't give big long term contracts to guys like hardy, it's simply not worth the risk in a conservative business.

Still going to love watching him put up big sack numbers this season though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • pantherclaw
      Canales doesn't sound all the way sold on Bryce

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I enjoy being truthful. Although that means being unbiased. Which most on here are incapable of being unbiased. 
    • Raleigh PF
      Giannis

      By Raleigh PF · Posted

      It looks like the Bucks and Giannis are headed for a divorce. He says he's ready to play and the Bucks say that he has told them he isn't. It really doesn't matter except that it likely means the end for Giannis in Milwaukee. He's 31 years old, but still an elite producer.  So, as GM, would you go after him this offseason? Remember, the Hornets have two 1st round picks this year and potentially THREE first round picks next year. What would a trade look like?
    • MHS831
      Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

      By MHS831 · Posted

      I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means.  If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season.  What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters.  Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT.  I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic.  In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade?  A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT.  How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett.  Would you take Simpson in the draft?  Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you  and I get your point.  I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker.  In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up.  Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs.  For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting.  We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun.  There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.
×
×
  • Create New...