• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About theTruthTeller

  • Rank
    The Rookie
  • Birthday 05/23/1957

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Dallas, TX
  1. Like I said **** Jason Taylor (M.E.T)

    This is why Jason Taylor is in the Hall of Fame. Only one player near him in sacks isn't in the Hall - that being Leslie O'Neal. He didn't play poorly on purpose when he was on the Skins, it just wasn't a good scheme for his abilities. And he didn't disrespect the Skins in any way during his speech. All-Time Sack Leaders with Non-Eligible Players Removed (+ indicates HOF) Bruce Smith+ 200.0 1985-2003 Reggie White+ 198.0 1985-2000 Kevin Greene+ 160.0 1985-1999 Chris Doleman+ 150.5 1985-1999 Michael Strahan+ 141.5 1993-2007 Jason Taylor+ 139.5 1997-2011 Richard Dent+ 137.5 1983-1997 John Randle+ 137.5 1990-2003 Leslie O'Neal 132.5 1986-1999 Lawrence Taylor+ 132.5 1981-1993 Rickey Jackson+ 128.0 1981-1995 Derrick Thomas+ 126.5 1989-1999 Taylor getting in has nothing to do with Jacoby not getting in. Jacoby isn't in because: (1) there is no overriding objective metric for OL and (2) the subjective metrics - 4 Pro Bowls and 2 All-Pro First Teams - don't play in Jacoby's favor. There are a lot of OLs with more than 2 AP1s and a lot of OLs with 2 AP1s that have more PBs. The biggest thing in his favor is the 80's All-Decade Team - it's hard to argue that someone could be the best player in a decade but not one of the best of all-time. The three SB rings are nice, but the majority of the HOF voters are connected to constituencies without multiple SB wins and they are constantly trying to fight the urge to over-represent the dynasties in order to get in players whose individual accomplishments are overlooked. I think they see Grimm as representing the Hogs. If it makes anyone feel better, and it won't, Bob Kuechenberg has been nominated 8 times and never made it to the semi-finals.
  2. I think that most of the blame needs to be placed on the paint and the room. Bruce appears to be doing a stellar job of applying the paint to the floor.
  3. It's my understanding that if you transition tag a player and fail to match the offer sheet, you get no compensatory pick for losing the tagged FA. Not that a 3rd rounder is fair compensation, but it's something.
  4. People are dangling by the thin, rapidly fraying thread that the FO knows what it's doing and that the worst case scenario is paying Cousins $28M next year, even if another team makes an offer they can't match. I think its best just to let them hold on to these hopes.
  5. I understand that you were relaying what Cooley said, but I want to clarify some things. The numbers and any other principal terms (incentives, no trade clauses,...) must be exactly the same. There are no subjective determinations about whether the "matching" offer is just as good or pays just as well in the aggregate. The poison pill exception applies only to cases where the contract language states rights and obligations for the New Club that would be different from rights and obligations of the Old Club if identical language was used. Cooley doesn't have any superior knowledge from people he has talked to - right of first refusal is set out in Article 9, Section 3 of the the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 2011. The poison pill language is defined in Article 9, Section 3(e)(iii): If Cooley has been talking to people in the FO and they don't know that a matching offer really does need to match, we're in a lot of trouble.
  6. Also, scaring a player into signing a contract to protect his future income from injury is a lot more effective on players signing their first non-rookie contract than it is on players who have just made $44M guaranteed money over two years, along with additional endorsement money.
  7. Not to mention the concept of insurance. Michael Lombardi estimated the cost of a policy to cover future losses from an injury this year would be about $500K. I'm sure there would be a significant deductible and some objective criteria to determine losses. For a guy who has never had a significant injury in the NFL and isn't the type who takes on tacklers, it seems to be a reasonable approach.
  8. This is what I was thinking, but I group 1 and 2 together. Don't impede free agency, just win the beauty contest. At this point, I don't see Kirk making a LTD except in an open market.
  9. There is a compensatory formula that assigns draft choice based on FAs you lost and FA you signed in a given year. Compensatory picks come at the end of rounds 3-7, they aren't taken from the teams that gained in free agency.
  10. I'll make this as clear as I can. The Skins tagged Kirk. By tagging Kirk, the Skins got something they wanted (exclusive rights to Kirk in 2017 for $24M) and the tag also initiated obligations for 2018 that they didn't want; namely, they had three possibilities with regard to future negotiations with Kirk: (1) unfettered FA for Kirk in 2018, (2) paying Kirk around $28 to play in 2018, with the caveat that Kirk could sign another offer and the Skins could match, or (3) paying Kirk around $36M for his exclusive rights in 2018. The Skins knew about all of this in advance. They also knew that Kirk was happy playing under the tag. Tagging a player doesn't give the team any rights to negotiate. In fact, it takes rights away, as the team can't sign a contract after July 15 until the season ends. Oddly, Gruden understood the problem completely Here's a direct quote from Gruden on March 13, days after Kirk signed the offer sheet: “We can offer him the world, and if he doesn’t want to sign it, he doesn’t have to sign it,” Gruden said. The dumbasses in the FO either didn't understand the situation, or were just acting like two year olds. Kirk didn't need to sign a different contract and it didn't make any sense for him to negotiate downward from what he signed in March. If the FO's sensibilities are so acute that they can't make a second, decent offer to get negotiations started, they should get different jobs. And I'm 100% sure they were made aware of the deficiencies in their offer - what else could they have possibly have been talking about in their meetings with Kirk? This idea that negotiation protocol demands that a counteroffer be made is just BS to make Kirk look bad. Seriously, the FO blew any chance to get a deal because their egos prevented them from making a serious offer until Kirk countered the first bogus offer? They are totally inept, and the media release only made things worse.
  11. So the FO puts out a low-ball offer which they no won't be signed and Kirk is expected to "get it on record what exactly Cousins and his agent expect for a LTD". Sounds kinda unfair. If Kirk's side had put an offer on the table for $30M/year and $100M guaranteed, would that obligate the FO to get on the record exactly the maximum they would spend if Kirk was a free agent? Or can the FO continue to make below market offers? The bottom line is that the offer was rejected by Kirk's side. Whether they explicitly said that or not, I don't know. Both sides have said that they were talking with one another. I wonder what they were talking about? The NBA finals? I'm having a hard time believing that the FO didn't know where their offer was deficient, whether or not a formal counteroffer was submitted. It was the Skins who tagged Kirk. Kirk didn't tag Kirk. If the Skins wanted out of the tag agreement, it is really up to the FO to make a deal that would entice Kirk to give up his options in 2018. I really don't care if the Skins had to make five offers before real negotiations started. Their job was to get the deal done and they failed.
  12. I don't think so. If Kirk had signed the deal, there would be no tag in 2018. He's comparing average salary to the remaining $29M in fully guaranteed money. It's a little more than one year, but not a lot.
  13. Agreed. Kirk's way too savvy and too decent a person to throw anyone in the FO under the bus. But the truth will get out.
  14. I wonder how many Jacks it would take for Scot to get drunk enough to be more incompetent than Bruce? My guess is that he'd have to start drinking at breakfast and not stop.