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!

     

KEY Player Retention under Reich??


bLACKpANTHER
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bozeman is the only absolute certainty needing to be re-signed, regardless of the offensive scheme we're bringing in.  The rest, I think we can figure it out with coaching identifying the fits that are out there.

Would think Shaq on a discount would be dope, but we'll see.  He'll be a decent/slightly above-avg LB on his 3rd contract, it's not going to be as much as his last one (by any means), but we'll have to see what type of defense we're building and if he fits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ChuckWag78 said:

I don't understand what some people expect out of a kicker. He only led the league in PAT percentage last year, and only missed two field goals. Perfect from 50+ yards. So let's focus on only those two kicks versus the 95% of other kicks, right we should get rid of him ASAP!

To act like every single field goal in the NFL isn't high pressure is ridiculous. Eddie has proved he can do this job well and I guarantee you if we let him go Dallas would be happy to sign him same day.

I expect him to hit a 30 yard field goal with the game on the line. That should be 100%. Top % in PATs impresses me a lot less than 0% fig in pressure situations, and no not all kicks are pressure situations. A fg in the second quarter is a lot less critical than 10s left in the game down by 1. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Does it make anyone else sad when this is our list of “key” FAs. Bozeman is fine to target but there’s not one person that couldn’t be replaced with a little effort, like just a bit better than thinking Darnold, Mayfield, Erving and Elflein could turn it around. Stay off the scrap heap and you can replace them all in the draft or FA.

Bozeman could not be replaced with a little effort. He is a great C and it would be foolish to let him go. First good C we’ve had since Kalil, we finally have a very good OL for the first time in about 11 years and we can’t lose the central piece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather us move away from Foreman.  Maybe circle back to him after the draft if he's still available.  But while he did a good job for us last year and was a driving force on a bad offense, he is at the end of the day replaceable.  I'd rather us wait and see how everything else plays out for us.  I wouldn't be against taking a RB with one of our picks in the 2nd and 3rd.  Someone dynamic that can help out our rookie QB early.  Plus I think Reich would prefer someone more dynamic out of the backfield anyway.  

Let Ionnadis walk

Definitely bring back Bozeman at a reasonable price.  We need continuity on the OL.  

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

    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...