Jericho

Members
  • Content Count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jericho

  • Rank
    The Special Teams Ace
  • Birthday 09/26/1978

Profile Information

  • Location
    Laurel, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jericho

    Ooooweee Dunbar wants to be traded!

    Not sure why I'd give up a decent pick and Dunbar for Howard. Dunbar for Howard seems like a reasonable deal by itself
  2. Jericho

    A tight end by any other name

    I don't remember Rob Gronkowski or Travis Kelce or even George Kittle being on the Redskins. I like Reed and all , but we're talking about a player with one season over 686 yards. Only two season with more than 558 yards. Let's not go overboard here...
  3. Jericho

    Ooooweee Dunbar wants to be traded!

    I mean I get it. Dunbar signed for cheap, which in retrospect was a bad move for him. He's now in the last year of his current deal. It's not unusual for teams to talk new deal at this point. Some teams even refuse to consider a new deal until you are in the last year. So it's makes sense and Dunbar's not doing anything unusual. I'd also admit he's probably a tough player to properly gauge value wise given the injuries and lack of a long track record. Which might be part of the hesitance of renegotiation. I suspect Dunbar wants way more than the team is willing to offer without more "proof" on the field. We'll see how this plays out. Dunbar's obviously not being released, but Earl Thomas kept grumbling for years about his deal before it just finally expired.
  4. One interesting quirk of the current system is that it allowed teams to use both the franchise and transition tags in the same year for the final year of the CBA (this year). Not that you would think it would matter much, but it could be very useful to a team like Dallas as both Prescott and Cooper are potentially heading towards unrestricted free agency. Not to mention Byron Jones. If the two sides agree to a new deal, I suspect that quirk goes away and although its unlikely to help the Redskins, I like anything that does not benefit Dallas. I also wonder if June 1 cut designations will come back for this year. Could be a factor with Alex Smith
  5. I remain unconvinced Njoku will actually be that good. He reminds me of a Jared Cook. Physical freak, but a guy that took a long time to really get it. And even then, it wasn't that great. At the right price, I can see it. But Njoku would have to come dirt cheap. I like Howard far more, but suspect he'll cost decent assets too. Which is part of the appeal of a Hooper or a Henry. No draft picks have to be traded. And Njoku and Howard will need to get paid soon too, so money won't be radically different. Sprinkle is uninspiring, but I see no point in cutting him.
  6. Almost certainly true. But I'd rather the team spend a few extra million for a guy like Henry or Hooper. Even if Olsen stays healthy and productive in 2020 (big ifs, IMO), he's probably gone in 2021. So hopefully this helps the Skins achieve that.
  7. Jericho

    Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

    I feel I write something and you interpret something completely different. It seems you want players to aim for guaranteed contacts. Fine. I get that. You conceded you don't want the NFL to mandate guaranteed contracts. Okay, I get that. Since contracts are negotiated between player and team, are you're specifically saying you don't want the team to change. Isn't the only option left for the player to change? And since agents negotiate on the player's behalf, aren't you then essentially saying agents should change their tactics? Specifically because it seems like you disagree with the tactics the agents are currently employing? Or at least you don't like the end results of the contracts the players sign. So something, somewhere in the system has to change to get what you want. I'm just still not clear what it is you want to change. Because it seems like the only thing left is to say you think players should aim for shorter, fully guaranteed contracts. Which is basically just a choice. Which is what I thought was my conclusion from my last post. But I'm not sure you agree with that. The owners aren't pocketing the money, they're just spending it on different players. When the Redskins cut Norman and Richardson, it's not like Daniel Snyder found an extra $20 million lying around to buy another yacht. Instead the team will throw that money at other free agents, like Austin Hooper or Jame Bradberry. Fully guaranteed contracts does not mean the players, on the whole, get more money. It will just change how contracts are negotiated.
  8. Jericho

    Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

    Okay, I'll take one more stab here, cause I'm still not clear what it is you are trying to advocate. You specifically say you are not advocating fully guaranteed contracts. But in the next sentence you literally say "NFL players should get fully guaranteed contracts". So is this just a personal preference? Since no league requires guaranteed contracts and contracts are negotiated individually, it sounds like you want players to change their preferences and just aim for shorter guaranteed deals. Which is fine, if that floats your boat. I'm not sure what that would accomplish or why it would be any better than the current system. Also not sure why you reference the CBA several posts back as this would have nothing to do with the CBA. Maybe that's why I misunderstood you. Really, it sounds like you think NFL agents just do a really crappy job of negotiating deals for their clients. But if you want to try and change hearts and minds of NFL players, I see no harm.
  9. Jericho

    Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

    Basically from your prior post. If you aren't advocating fully guaranteed contracts be required in the NFL, then what is that you want? And what is it you think will get addressed at the next CBA negotiations? Maybe I'm just lost. Because all the other sports allow players to negotiate their contract and their own terms, including whether or not any or all of a contract is guaranteed. The NBA doesn't mandate that contracts are guaranteed. The NHL does not mandate it. MLB does not mandate. So what exactly do you think the NFL should do? And how do you think the CBA needs to change? Because it seems like you're advocating that the NFL must have fully guaranteed contracts for all players. Besides QBs, what players/positions do you think teams are really going to commit big money and multiple years to? Injury and performance issues are serious risks for virtually anyone and the risk is probably only worth it with the very elite players. You reference teams giving out "3 yr fully guaranteed contracts, which is what they have now - just with a few extra years that gives the teams extra control". Not sure that's particularly prevalent, but the "few extra years" is something the team negotiates for to be in their favor. They give the early guaranteed money so they get extra years on the back end to either get a bargain or allow them to move on if its not. If the teams are not getting that back end benefit, they'll likely offer less guaranteed money up front.. If the teams have no way to get out from a contract, they'll offer less years. Everything will be reduced. I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you trying to claim that sports don't have bad contracts? Every sport does, including the NFL. Even on short term deals, you'll have bad contracts. You sign a RB to a 2 year deal for $16 million dollars. He blows out his ACL in Week 17 of year 1. He's probably on IR all year two eating up $8 million dollars of cap. You sign free agents like Stephen Paea or Stacy McGee or Terrell McClain who instantly suck and become anchors. Hopefully you didn't give any of them 2 year deals. It's inevitable teams will pay a lot of money for poor production. Yes, that will essentially replace the "dead" money on the salary cap. Though not sure how you'd even address rookies. None should get very much money, because there's a good chance they just suck or don't even make the final 53. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't want 70% of the league on one year deals and most of the roster switching teams every year. I'm also not sure why there's a problem with the current system. My point is moving to fully guaranteed contracts does not seem to solve anything. Players salaries are dictated by the salary cap. They get a percentage of revenue. They'd still get the same percentage. So even with fully guaranteed contracts, players aren't getting more money. So I'm not sure what it solves. Make what happen? I mean the NFL is pretty different in that careers are short and the risk of injury is quite high compared to the NBA and much of MLB (though pitchers are a significant injury risk). But you seem to now be advocating that you're not asking for contracts to be guaranteed. So I'm not sure what exactly you want to change.
  10. Jericho

    Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

    Actually, unless there's been some recent changes I'm not up to date on, no sport requires guaranteed contracts. For example, the NBA has made more use of non-guaranteed contracts in recent years, though arguably it's also for salary cap purposes. But the other sports leave it up the individual negotiations. And obviously you can have fully guaranteed NFL contracts. Kirk Cousins has one. But it is rare. If NFL contracts had to became fully guaranteed for some reason, you'd see a much different system where the overwhelming number of players would be on 1-2 year deals. I also doubt it would result in more money to the players. The salary cap would still be there, though you should be able remove the "dead" money from the cap. Instead you'd just have bad contracts eating up your cap. But with most players on 1-2 year deals, you'd also likely see a lot more player movement.
  11. Jericho

    Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

    No, I don't think anyone who knows anything is serious about that. For one, it would actually cost $18 million to cut him. Almost double cutting Alex Smith. But he's still young and still very good. Is he overpaid? Almost certainly. But its something the team can live with.
  12. I tend to agree. It's generally the nature of free agency that you have to overpay. But if you overpay a top guy, then at least you're still getting good production. If you can't get a top guy, then you try and find people on one year prove-it type deals. The middle grounds is where the most busts come from. In theory, you can get good value anywhere if everything aligns, but it usually does not. For WR, the only elite option is Cooper. AJ Green used to be elite, but age and injury makes him too risky unless it's a one year deal, IMO. If you don't want to go for Cooper or miss out, I'd likely just see who's looking for that one year deal. I imagine Funchess would be likely, considering he "settled" for a one year deal last year and then got hurt the whole year. I think a more likely plan might be to go an try and nab a top TE (there are two in Hopper and Henry) and just hope to get something in the draft at WR outside of one year deals.
  13. The biggest problem there is cost. Anderson will likely cost at least $10 million per year, over multiple years. Devin Funchess would likely come much cheaper, and of course has the Carolina connection.
  14. I think they were technically under contract til the new league year in March
  15. I always feel a bit bad for no-name guys cut this early. Rivera apparently had no interest in Ladler and Odom as even camp bodies. Which is a pretty harsh indictment of a player's ability.