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!

     

BREAKING: Adam Thielen Not retiring…


Recommended Posts

I assumed Thielen was gone, but if he doesn't take a big step back with age that is a huge relief to have a possession veteran that you can rely on. Bryce may have some weapons depending on the progression of Coker, Legette and Sanders plus maybe one good starter in FA.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that without Bryce's resurgence and Coker potentially being his successor, retirement or going elsewhere would've been the more attractive option. Really long shot to give Thielen a shot at a ring like we tried with Jared Allen, but having him back is going to make things easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS

Quote

I think that’s what has enticed me to want to play again is just the progression, the leadership, the type of things that they’re doing to try to create a winning culture

Definitely a 180 of a player's perspective when compared to Greg Olsen (and others) who left immediately after Coach Cornball showed up without exactly saying why

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jasonluckydog said:

Give him a guaranteed 1 year deal 6 million with lots of incentives that could reach 10 million. 

You know he’s already under contact for this year, right? There’s no need to guarantee or add incentives. We either want to keep him or release him. Restructuring would be dumb. We don’t need to push any money down the road for a 5-12 team with a horrific defense.

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

You know he’s already under contact for this year, right? There’s no need to guarantee or add incentives. We either want to keep him or release him. Restructuring would be dumb. We don’t need to push any money down the road for a 5-12 team with a horrific defense.

I agree with this--a WR in the slot who can get you 800-1000 yards is worth 6.  I would like to see us add a slot to rotate with him, and I would like to see XL, Coker, and a draft pick or free agent play outside.

Thank God AT is coming back and Coker is stepping up.  Imagine if AT retired and Coker never happened?  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

You know he’s already under contact for this year, right? There’s no need to guarantee or add incentives. We either want to keep him or release him. Restructuring would be dumb. We don’t need to push any money down the road for a 5-12 team with a horrific defense.

Paying him the same out of respect but with incentives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jasonluckydog said:

Paying him the same out of respect but with incentives. 

Again, dude signed a 3 year 25M deal. He averaged 8.3M per year. Why would you add more incentives when you have him under contract? Is your name Marty? I remember when out of respect he gave Greg more money and Greg didn’t earn a penny of it as he missed most of the last couple of seasons with injuries.

Thielen is not going to hold out. You don’t just kick more money to him when you don’t have to and he already got the signing bonus up front.

  • Pie 2
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 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...