Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rotoworld: Vincent Jackson ... will remain available for trade (MET)


Mr.Skinbo

Recommended Posts

I think the deal in place was somewhere around 4yr/$40 mil or a $10 per year thing with "character" protection clauses. That of course was squashed when AJ wouldn't take the picks offered.

I think he's worth that but that's just me.

I think he's worth it as well. As long as it's not 6yr/$70 mil w/30 mil guarenteed.

---------- Post added December-17th-2010 at 11:37 AM ----------

Of all the Gibbs v2.0 holdovers, Moss is one of the ones I'd consider keeping if only for the reason that we can't replace everyone in one offseason.

I have hopes that Austin can be our next Moss (albeit a poor-man's version). He needs to get some reps down the stretch this season now that we're done.

I wouldn't mind Moss if he was still under contract after the season. But for him to be on the roster we would have to sign him to another contract or franchise him. And personally i'm not willing that they invest anything into an aging WR past his prime. I like Moss, but its time to move on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big risk for the Chargers to do that.

What if no one takes the bait and they are stuck with VJax for the year?

I suppose it's a calculated gamble, but I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to get ANYTHING. It's just a matter of what they'll accept, which was the issue this time around. It's like Haynesworth, all you need is one team and the Skins had it, they just didn't wanna accept the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys really think the Chargers would franchise VJ? That seems like an absolute disaster. He wants a long term deal. You think they would go through this year all over again, because no way he is happy with a franchise tag.

It's not clear whether there will be a franchise tag in the new CBA, but for a wide receiver it would require a one-year commitment in the $10 million range should the CBA keep it. I'm thinking AJ won't do it in the event he gets stuck with that price tag.

---------- Post added December-17th-2010 at 11:20 AM ----------

Also, from Schefter....

If San Diego doesn't want to pay WR Vincent Jackson, I can think of teams in Seattle and Washington DC that would.

More teams that could use WR Vincent Jackson: Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago. Someone's going to pay the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if the writting on the wall says that Mcnabb is gone after this year,

then the team could be looking at a young stud thru the draft or trade.

Either way, they better get him some weapons to throw to.

Vjax

A.J. Green

S. Moss

A. Armstrong

Maybe's ??

M. Kelly

Sidney Rice

and does anybody know that status on Mike Sims-Walker, JAC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
VJack is going to get tagged.

Which means AJ Smith cost his team a Super Bowl last year because now he'll have to pay VJack what he didn't want to pay him last year.

SD should just hire Vinny. Seriously.

Any news on tagging Sidney Rice?

Nevermind, I missed that they're gonna stick with a transition tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the tag be to maintain control of his rights to get value in a trade? I don't know if Vinny would be smart enough to do that. It also buys them time to get Jackson to sign a long term deal if they plan to offer him one.

They could always take less than the 2 first rounders in a trade, but I doubt Smith would. Paying him the franchise tag money would be a total failure. They should have just dealt him last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically all the big names will be franchised.

So goodbye to:

Lamar Woodley

VJ

Sidney Rice

Logan Mankins

And Haloti Ngata will probly get a long term deal.

Players that we wouldn't have been able to get anyway because of the high price tag. This still leaves us with a nice crop of FAs provided that a team can only tag one player per season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between Franchise and Transition tags?
A transition tag is a tool used by National Football League teams to retain unrestricted free agents. It guarantees the original club the right of first refusal to match any offer the player may make with another team. The transition tag can be used once a year by each club unless they elect to use a franchise tag instead. Transition tags can be rescinded; however, teams that rescind a transition tag cannot use it again until the next season.

If a player signs a contract after receiving the transition tag, his original team can not use the tag again on any player until the contract has expired. The exception is if the player first signs a transition offer sheet, which is a one-year contract equal to the average salary of the top ten players in the league at the player's position, or a twenty percent salary increase, whichever is greater. This contract was not historically guaranteed; however, it became guaranteed starting in 2007 per the collective bargaining agreement agreed to by the NFL owners and the NFLPA on March 8, 2006. If the player signs the offer sheet prior to a long-term contract, the player's team can then use the tag the next year.

If another club offers a contract to a transitioned player, his original club has seven days to decide whether to match that offer or not. If the original club agrees to match, the player is forced to sign with the original club at the terms agreed to in the offer by the other club. If the original club declines to match, the player signs with the other team, and the original team is offered no compensation, as they would be if the player had received the franchise tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AKA being saved from ourselves.

Pretty much. We don't need big name Free Agents to turn this around. A good dose of hungry players looking for a shot would do us so much better. Once the big names get those big contracts from another team they usually drop off in production like Julius Peppers and Karlos Dansby did this past season, the last group of "Big Names"

The news about those WR's likely sticking around and us losing Moss has me puzzled. If we aren't planning on adding a FA wideout to replace Moss where do we suppose we are going to find his replacement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Peppers was actually the exception, and was in the running for DPOY.

But that is usually not the case.

Didn't know that. I was just comparing his stats in Carolina before moving to Chicago and there is a drop off, abit not the canyon that Hanyesworth was but still a small drop off. Admittedly I didn't know he was in the running for DPOY award, that kinda busts my point but I think the points got some validity. It seems that once a guy gets that big time payday they take it easy and don't perform like they did before they got the money.

If we don't resign Moss, I would expect that they plan on drafting a WR, and signing some low cost vets.

Drafting a WR...at 10? I can't see us doing that. The top WR is gone by our pick so we'd really have to be high on the 2nd or 3rd options there or find some "gems" in the later rounds.

The "low cost vets" we signed last year all blew. I'd hope we'd had learned the lesson already with the Galloways and Roydell Williams failures. We should know that your not going to replace 90+ catches that easily. I was assuming that a push for Rice was coming. He fits the Moss build but is much younger and an overall better player. Maybe the thing here is the Vikings are only going to have the right of first refusal here with the tag and it still happens? Personally I think Rice could be a very good WR for this offense. If it were up to me that's where I'm going for a replacement but then again Steve Smith from the Giants could also be Moss's replacement. I'd love to get him here too. Either one would make for a fine replacement imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...