Not many players will be franchised this year

[Outshined]

This may have been posted...

 

Clubs were permitted to start designating franchise and transition players Thursday and, not surprisingly, no club forwarded the pertinent paperwork for such a move. The deadline for declaring franchise and transition players is Feb. 22, and the league won't be particularly busy on that front.

 

 

"The number [of franchise players] definitely is going down," said NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw. "A few years ago, we had 11 or 12. Then last season, there were only three. I don't think there will be many [in 2007]."

 

 

 

Position 2007 franchise charge Change from 2006

 

QB $12.615 million +43.5%

OL $9.556 million +36.8%

DE $8.664 million +3.7%

CB $7.790 million +32.2%

WR $7.613 million +23.3%

LB $7.206 million +0.5%

RB $6.999 million +15.0%

DT $6.775 million +19.8%

S $4.490 million +9.3%

TE $4.371 million +31.2%

P/K $2.078 million -15.8%

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2759910

[charty]

That's wishful thinking by Upshaw, I've been reading the opposite.

I've read the number of franchise tags will increase this year, based on 2 things:

- High number of teams with plenty of cap room, which is due to the increased salary cap figures brought on by the new CBA.

- Even though the numbers went up for the most part, the Franchise Charge per position aren't really in line with the higher salaries that are a result of the new CBA.

Edited February 13, 2007 by charty

[Vinatieri Is God]

I think the Pats are going to franchise Daniel Graham.

[Seahawks21]

I heard the Pats are considering franchising Samuel, which would be great if it leads to Graham coming to Seattle.

There are lots of prominent players that are simply too good to be let go by their current teams...

 

Freeney

Briggs

Hamlin/Stevens/Brown

Charles Grant

 

I know I am missing some other big ones, but from the sounds of it, this will not be a year where the franchise tag goes largely unused.

[bushwacked]

I heard the Pats are considering franchising Samuel, which would be great if it leads to Graham coming to Seattle.

 

 

 

Not the biggest Jerramy Stevens fan here, but the Hawks probably should franchise him this year. Think of it as a one year incentive laden contract that comes about as cheap as you can get for franchising a position. I don't want another brand new receiving TE learning the WCO while the window is shutting.

[Bill Swerski]

I heard the Pats are considering franchising Samuel, which would be great if it leads to Graham coming to Seattle.

 

I think that they franchise Graham before Samuel. Samuel reportedly wants to be paid like Champ Bailey and I don't see Belichick giving him that type of money. With NE's offense struggling, I think that they hold onto Graham, an excellent blocker and an underrated receiving TE.

 

There are lots of prominent players that are simply too good to be let go by their current teams...

 

Freeney

 

Bill Polian has said that the Colts will definitely franchise-tag Freeney if they can't sign him to a long-term deal. And I really doubt that CHI lets Briggs walk.

[Seahawks21]

I think that they franchise Graham before Samuel. Samuel reportedly wants to be paid like Champ Bailey and I don't see Belichick giving him that type of money.

 

This is the exact situation that the franchise tag was made for. For me it is just hard to figure that they would pay Graham the average of the top 5 TE's. Samuel will be paid, but if you franchise him, you're not on the hook long term for big money. The Pats have so much cap room, I just can't see them letting someone as important as Samuel get away considering they've had such recent depth issues in the defensive backfield.

 

Also to comment on Stevens, GET THE WORTHLESS PILE OF JUNK OUT OF HERE!! Geez. That guy loses games. Period. The Super Bowl for instance??

[bushwacked]

Also to comment on Stevens, GET THE WORTHLESS PILE OF JUNK OUT OF HERE!! Geez. That guy loses games. Period. The Super Bowl for instance??

 

 

 

Stevens and his incosistency drives me crazy, but, there is no arguing he contributed big time in the NFC conference championship game last year and the wildcard game this year. He changes the way defenses play, and when his head is into the game, he can change games. His blocking is very underated, indicated by pancacking Urlacher on SA's TD at Soldier field in the 2nd half. With the franchise tag, his future paydays will largely be dependant on his level of play this upcoming season.

 

Graham is not the athlete Stevens is, and after watching Burleson and Branch struggle to pick up the WCO...bringing in another new guy makes little sense if you assume a championship is only realistic for another 1-3 years.

[Bill Swerski]

This is the exact situation that the franchise tag was made for. For me it is just hard to figure that they would pay Graham the average of the top 5 TE's. Samuel will be paid, but if you franchise him, you're not on the hook long term for big money. The Pats have so much cap room, I just can't see them letting someone as important as Samuel get away considering they've had such recent depth issues in the defensive backfield.

 

Belichick doesn't like to pay top-dollar to DBs. He let both Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law walk when they wanted new contracts.

 

I agree that I'd probably take Samuel over Graham, especially with Rodney Harrison nearing the end of his career. That said, Samuel has only had one really good year and reportedly wants to be paid like a top CB. The Pats will also need significant cap room to re-sign guys like Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork in the near future. And with Junior Seau being pretty much done and Tedy Bruschi mulling retirement, it's likely that they'll bring in at least one veteran LB.

[Seahawks21]

Belichick doesn't like to pay top-dollar to DBs. He let both Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law walk when they wanted new contracts.

 

I agree that I'd probably take Samuel over Graham, especially with Rodney Harrison nearing the end of his career. That said, Samuel has only had one really good year and reportedly wants to be paid like a top CB. The Pats will also need significant cap room to re-sign guys like Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork in the near future. And with Junior Seau being pretty much done and Tedy Bruschi mulling retirement, it's likely that they'll bring in at least one veteran LB.

 

Exactly!! They won't be paying him like a top corner!! Top corners garner like 50 million dollars. Samuel will get 7-8, total. The Pats have over 30 million of cap room that they have saved from letting their previous veterans walk. They can easily afford everything you mentioned. It isn't like they are making a huge investment here, they get the money back next year. No-brainer franchise tag.

[forever in debt to mo lewis]

Belichick doesn't like to pay top-dollar to DBs. He let both Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law walk when they wanted new contracts.

 

I agree that I'd probably take Samuel over Graham, especially with Rodney Harrison nearing the end of his career. That said, Samuel has only had one really good year and reportedly wants to be paid like a top CB. The Pats will also need significant cap room to re-sign guys like Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork in the near future. And with Junior Seau being pretty much done and Tedy Bruschi mulling retirement, it's likely that they'll bring in at least one veteran LB.

 

 

samuel certainly had a good year...and ive always said that i liked him alot in the past...even when others would dog him for inconsistency...finally hes starting to come into his own and make plays on the ball...he was always in a spot to in the past...he just didnt make a play on the ball or would just plain drop em(he took alot of crap for his bad hands around here in the past)...things really started to round into form for him

 

ill certainly agree...that i cant see the pats signing him to a long term deal at 7+ per...but ive got to think that they have got to try and find a way to use the system to their advantage...some team will pay him that...and some team will surrender a 1st for him....

 

i think that theyve got to franchise him and deal him...and get a 1st rounder in the 20's...the pats love having those picks...in the late 1st round...guys they can control for years on the cheap...it provides with a way to stay ahead when theyll probably part ways with samuel anyway

 

i think theyve got to find a way to hammer something out with graham if they can...but as ive said before..i think hed be alot more valuable to other teams who might feature him more...and he might relish at the chance to have a more featured role in a passing game....

 

as far as bringing in a linebacker...theres alot of giddy talk around here following the comments adalius thomas made about working with BB at the pro bowl...for now, its just all talk

[Shorttynaz]

There are lots of prominent players that are simply too good to be let go by their current teams...

 

Freeney

Briggs

Hamlin/Stevens/Brown

Charles Grant

 

I'm surprised that you even mentioned J Stevans in your list of people who could be franchised. Why?? He's had a couple good games in the past, and he was looking like he was emerging in the 2005 season, but IMO, after recovering from his injury this past season, his #'s didnt jump out as anything that's "out of the ordinary."

Edited February 13, 2007 by Shorttynaz

[bushwacked]

I'm surprised that you even mentioned J Stevans in your list of people who could be franchised. Why??

 

 

 

I can't answer for 21, but I did express my opinion on Stevens above. In addition the Seahawks only have few key unrestricted free agents this year.

 

TE Stevens

FS Hamlin

WR Engram

K Josh Brown

 

Stevens will probably demand the most expensive long term deal out of the 4 and thus should be the hardest to re-sign. Franchising a TE won't break the bank. Don't look too much into last years injury plauged numbers (not just for him, but the whole entire offense). He is an extremly athletic guy, a former 1st round draft pick, and has significantly impacted playoff games (positively ) for the Hawks. If he isn't franchised, someone will take a chance on him for a decent payday.

Edited February 13, 2007 by bushwacked

[charty]

I heard the Pats are considering franchising Samuel, which would be great if it leads to Graham coming to Seattle.

 

This is the main reason the Pats would franchise Graham over Samuel:

CB $7.790 million

TE $4.371 million

 

$8M might not sound like a lot, but all 8 would go against next years cap. Compare that to a contract that averages $8M per year but is backloaded with a couple years the player won't see because they'll be cut.

 

Another reason is that Graham might take being franchised differently than Samuel. He's a good tight end, not a "franchise" tight end that would probably be happy with $4.371M. Samuel is looking for a big time contract with a big time signing bonus and would probably end up pulling a Branch if franchised.

 

Even if they come to a contract agreement with Graham, it doesn't automatically mean they would franchise Samuel.

Edited February 14, 2007 by charty

[Randall]

Will the Bears franchise Briggs or can they sign him beforehand?

[Seahawks21]

I'm surprised that you even mentioned J Stevans in your list of people who could be franchised. Why?? He's had a couple good games in the past, and he was looking like he was emerging in the 2005 season, but IMO, after recovering from his injury this past season, his #'s didnt jump out as anything that's "out of the ordinary."

 

The only reason I mentioned Stevens as a possibility for being franchised is that I can't see the Seahawks giving him a multi-year deal. This way they can keep him around for a year without commiting to a future. He would seem to a player that may operate best on a one-year wait-and-see deal, using next year's payoff as incentive to get the most of him on the field. Make him play for the money. They did the same thing with Alexander with great success, they just shouldn't have paid him afterwards.

 

As I have said, I personally don't want them to bring him back. It is time for him to go, it just is. Maybe some other city can bring out his potential, it won't happen here. I like Daniel Graham a lot. IMO he is both a better blocker than Stevens, and is a lot more solid in the passing game. You lose a tiny bit of big play ability but add a few more important traits.

[Seahawks21]

Samuel is a better deal at 8 million than Graham is at 4.5. Look around...there aren't that many good corners in the league right now in their prime. Samuel really is one of the best. The Patriots have shocked me before (I guess it worked out for them okay) so I wouldn't really be that surprised if they let Samuel go, I just personally think it would be crazy.

[Bill Swerski]

Samuel is a better deal at 8 million than Graham is at 4.5. Look around...there aren't that many good corners in the league right now in their prime. Samuel really is one of the best. The Patriots have shocked me before (I guess it worked out for them okay) so I wouldn't really be that surprised if they let Samuel go, I just personally think it would be crazy.

 

 

I think that you're missing Charty's point: Samuel wants a long-term (5-7 years) deal and a HUGE signing bonus. In other words, he wants Champ Bailey money. As good as Samuel is, he ain't Champ Bailey. He's not Ty Law or Nate Clements, either. Hell, I don't even think that he's Deangelo Hall. Belichick isn't going to overpay for Samuel when he can sign a relatively good FA like Nick Harper for a lot less.

 

Also consider that the Pats are getting old on defense. Seau and Rodney Harrison are both pretty much done. Bruschi, the heart and soul of their defense, suffered a stroke a year and a half ago and is mulling retirement. They're also going to have to re-sign some of their younger players (Warren, Wilfork) at some point. They have a lot of cap room, but signing Samuel to a long-term deal might not be in their best interest.

[Seahawks21]

I think that you're missing Charty's point: Samuel wants a long-term (5-7 years) deal and a HUGE signing bonus. In other words, he wants Champ Bailey money. As good as Samuel is, he ain't Champ Bailey. He's not Ty Law or Nate Clements, either. Hell, I don't even think that he's Deangelo Hall. Belichick isn't going to overpay for Samuel when he can sign a relatively good FA like Nick Harper for a lot less.

 

Also consider that the Pats are getting old on defense. Seau and Rodney Harrison are both pretty much done. Bruschi, the heart and soul of their defense, suffered a stroke a year and a half ago and is mulling retirement. They're also going to have to re-sign some of their younger players (Warren, Wilfork) at some point. They have a lot of cap room, but signing Samuel to a long-term deal might not be in their best interest.

 

I never remotely suggested they would sign Samuel to a long-term deal. Who cares what he wants!?!?! He can want 10 years for 423 million, the Pats could care less. It is all a moot point. The fact is, the Pats have all the power here. There is a set number that Samuel cannot negotiate. Franchise him, bring him back next year, see what happens. No-brainer.

[Bill Swerski]

I never remotely suggested they would sign Samuel to a long-term deal. Who cares what he wants!?!?! He can want 10 years for 423 million, the Pats could care less. It is all a moot point. The fact is, the Pats have all the power here. There is a set number that Samuel cannot negotiate. Franchise him, bring him back next year, see what happens. No-brainer.

 

 

The Pats DO NOT have all of the power. Samuel could easily hold out if franchise-tagged and demand a trade. Given that he's on record saying that he wants a long-term deal, I'd say it's very possible. And that might actually work out well for the Pats, as they could get a high pick for him. But they'd have to find another way to keep Graham around.

[Seahawks21]

The Pats DO NOT have all of the power. Samuel could easily hold out if franchise-tagged and demand a trade. Given that he's on record saying that he wants a long-term deal, I'd say it's very possible. And that might actually work out well for the Pats, as they could get a high pick for him. But they'd have to find another way to keep Graham around.

 

Don't 99% of players want a long-term deal??? Almost no franchised players come to camp, most say they want to be traded. By the tuesday of the first week of the season, somehow they are always in camp with their one-year tender signed. This isn't a new dance. If the team wants him, they have him. The player's association agreed to this principle. So yes, the team does have all the power. If they want thim to stay and be franchised, there isn't a darn thing he or any other player can do about it.

[Bill Swerski]

Don't 99% of players want a long-term deal??? Almost no franchised players come to camp, most say they want to be traded. By the tuesday of the first week of the season, somehow they are always in camp with their one-year tender signed. This isn't a new dance. If the team wants him, they have him.

 

So, if that's true, how was Deion Branch able to force a trade last season?

 

So yes, the team does have all the power. If they want thim to stay and be franchised, there isn't a darn thing he or any other player can do about it.

 

Um, no they don't have all of the power. Seriously, if the Pats franchise-tagged Samuel and Samuel really wanted a long-term deal, what would stop him from holding out and forcing a trade? Why would Samuel accept the guaranteed $7.8 million or whatever it is when he could easily get over $12 million guaranteed on the free agent market.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

Branch's situation, while similar, was a bit different. He was under contract.

 

Nothing prevents Samuel from holding out and demanding a trade, but at the same time, the Patriots don't have to listen. By rule, he is forced to play for them. Players in this situation hold out and demand trades all the time, yet when ish comes to ish, they realize they don't have any power and have to ultimately come play for their team, accept their tender, or sit out the season. Almost every franchised player could get more on the open market than their franchise tender gives them. Walter Jones spent years being franchised when he could have gotten big money on the open market. Shaun could have had huge money but got tagged. Samuel could request a trade all he wants, but if there is nobody giving what the Pats want, he has to come back and play for them. It is his only option short of sitting and watching the NFL on tv.

[Bill Swerski]

Branch's situation, while similar, was a bit different. He was under contract.

 

His situation was no different than a franchise-tagged player being under contract.

 

Nothing prevents Samuel from holding out and demanding a trade, but at the same time, the Patriots don't have to listen. By rule, he is forced to play for them. Players in this situation hold out and demand trades all the time, yet when ish comes to ish, they realize they don't have any power and have to ultimately come play for their team, accept their tender, or sit out the season.

 

Nobody is "forced" to play for a team that franchise-tags them. They can hold out, forfeit their salary, and aren't allowed to play for another NFL team until that one-year contract is up. Then, unless the GM decides to franchise-tag a player who won't play for them (AND take a huge cap hit), they'll be a free agent the following season.

 

Almost every franchised player could get more on the open market than their franchise tender gives them. Walter Jones spent years being franchised when he could have gotten big money on the open market. Shaun could have had huge money but got tagged. Samuel could request a trade all he wants, but if there is nobody giving what the Pats want, he has to come back and play for them. It is his only option short of sitting and watching the NFL on tv.

 

You're correct that most players refrain from holding out after being tagged. But much of that has to do with the fact that GMs tag players that they know want to be there and won't be disruptive.

 

Samuel could very well sit at home, watch TV for a season, and then enter the free agent market again in '08. There will be takers. But it's more likely that NE franchise-tags him, takes the $7.8 million cap hit, and gets a first-round pick in return. If they play hardball with Samuel, they get nothing in return. I'd say that Samuel has quite a bit of power in this scenario. Even if he has to sit out for a season, he'll still get his free-agency and his long-term deal.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

His situation was no different than a franchise-tagged player being under contract.

Nobody is "forced" to play for a team that franchise-tags them. They can hold out, forfeit their salary, and aren't allowed to play for another NFL team until that one-year contract is up. Then, unless the GM decides to franchise-tag a player who won't play for them (AND take a huge cap hit), they'll be a free agent the following season.

You're correct that most players refrain from holding out after being tagged. But much of that has to do with the fact that GMs tag players that they know want to be there and won't be disruptive.

 

Samuel could very well sit at home, watch TV for a season, and then enter the free agent market again in '08. There will be takers. But it's more likely that NE franchise-tags him, takes the $7.8 million cap hit, and gets a first-round pick in return. If they play hardball with Samuel, they get nothing in return. I'd say that Samuel has quite a bit of power in this scenario. Even if he has to sit out for a season, he'll still get his free-agency and his long-term deal.

 

Who said anything about hardball!?!? They either franchise him or they don't. How is that hardball?? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. NOBODY wants to be franchise tagged. They all hate it. Every one. Whether or not a player is disruptive in the locker room has less than zero impact on whether or not they get the franchise tag. Samuel's case is exactly the guy that usually gets franchised--- A valuable player that the team wants to hold on to who will garner too much money in a long term contract for the team to afford. 95+% of franchised players return to play for their team without a holdout that keeps them from playing the first week of the season. Is it just a hunch for you that you think Samuel's case will be different?? Do you seriously think the Pats won't franchise Samuel simply because he wouldn't like it??

Edited February 15, 2007 by Seahawks21