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!

     

So you can FA ‘buy’ a Super Bowl


TheBigKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

At least buying the mercenaries is within the scope of the rules. The way the game was officiated was not. How many yards did non mercenary Bucs get? Wasn’t many. Evans had a catch or two, Brate had a couple, Jones had about 100 yards I think. The rest was Brady, Gronk and Fournette. Shortcut way, far less respectable, but at least fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why is everyone keeps saying the Bucs bought a Super Bowl when Brady was the only key free agent pick up. Brady talked Gronk into coming out of retirement, Browns & Fornette both were released from their teams. They both came to the Bucs on minimal contracts just to play with Brady. They knew it was their best chance of a Super Bowl. 
 

Suh was picked up by the Bucs in 2019. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, gakonline said:

Not sure why is everyone keeps saying the Bucs bought a Super Bowl when Brady was the only key free agent pick up. Brady talked Gronk into coming out of retirement, Browns & Fornette both were released from their teams. They both came to the Bucs on minimal contracts just to play with Brady. They knew it was their best chance of a Super Bowl. 
 

Suh was picked up by the Bucs in 2019. 

those players were the difference, that is why.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This offense is largely the same as it was last year.  Just change Winston for TB and add Gronk and Fornette.  The defense, that has been good against the run for like 3 years now, just got better in coverage with Winfield.  For the most part this is the same team as 2019.  The only thing that really changed is Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TheBigKat said:

First time I can recall that a SB was in essence bought by bringing in a surge of FA players 

Brady

Gronk

AB

Fournette

Suh

Never thought this was a formula for success but when done right and when a team has a base compliment of players 

In a normal FA period you can't pay all those guys what the woudl normally cost:

AB - Minimum contract after he ruined his own value

Fournette - Minimum contract after he pulled a Moss in JAX and got released

Suh - Aging vet at less than premium

Gronk - at a respectable rate after a trade of a 4th

TB12 - at 25M, which is substantially less than the current QB ''re-sign'' market value which is 35M+ for ''franchise QB's''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Growl said:

not really a new thing

 

we'll still have people screeching about cap space come FA

I mean, we haven't had CAP space for like 4 years because of bad signings.

We essentially sold our future and many young players away by making mistakes in resigning older players and over paying older players in FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...