..... it's a good move because he is the fourth most accurate kicker in league history.
OR
..... a sign of how void your team is of talent that you use your tag on a kicker. (and send a message to TJ Housh and future pain in the rear ocho-stinko)
Full Version: Franchise tagging you kicker is a sign of........
Yeah I saw on ESPN's bottom line this morning that Housch said he is not coming back and he believes that Chad isn't either.
QUOTE (yerckson3420 @ Feb 17 2009, 2:30:21 PM) 
..... it's a good move because he is the fourth most accurate kicker in league history.
The money isnt even that bad.. ITs worth it to keep a great K
My team tagged it's punter. I don't think that's a sign that Atlanta is devoid of talent. I think it's a sign that they want to be active early in free agency and don't want to have to worry about a player who's skills are actually scarce and could easily slip away if he's not locked up.
As for the Bengals... your guess is as good as mine. This franchise has managed to disintegrate two years after appearing to be on the edge of becoming an elite team in the AFC.
As for the Bengals... your guess is as good as mine. This franchise has managed to disintegrate two years after appearing to be on the edge of becoming an elite team in the AFC.
Clearly tagging Housh would've been a mistake. Paying about $10 million to your #2 receiver isn't a smart move.
Tagging Graham isn't a bad move because the money isn't bad and it's a clearly a position where you need to have a comfort level.
However, it may have been smart to give Cedric Benson the tag (see ProFootballTalk.com for more of this discussion). He played relatively well for the team down the stretch, especially considering the team was rolling Ryan Fitzpatrick out at QB. He even stayed out of trouble (and has done so during this offseason so far as well). The number would have been about $6 million, but that isn't outrageous for a starting RB. Now he's a free agent and they're going to have to get in a bidding war for him if they want him back or have to draft a franchise back early and give him lots of guaranteed money.
Tagging Graham isn't a bad move because the money isn't bad and it's a clearly a position where you need to have a comfort level.
However, it may have been smart to give Cedric Benson the tag (see ProFootballTalk.com for more of this discussion). He played relatively well for the team down the stretch, especially considering the team was rolling Ryan Fitzpatrick out at QB. He even stayed out of trouble (and has done so during this offseason so far as well). The number would have been about $6 million, but that isn't outrageous for a starting RB. Now he's a free agent and they're going to have to get in a bidding war for him if they want him back or have to draft a franchise back early and give him lots of guaranteed money.
QUOTE (jwest @ Feb 18 2009, 8:00:03 AM)
Clearly tagging Housh would've been a mistake. Paying about $10 million to your #2 receiver isn't a smart move.
Tagging Graham isn't a bad move because the money isn't bad and it's a clearly a position where you need to have a comfort level.
However, it may have been smart to give Cedric Benson the tag (see ProFootballTalk.com for more of this discussion). He played relatively well for the team down the stretch, especially considering the team was rolling Ryan Fitzpatrick out at QB. He even stayed out of trouble (and has done so during this offseason so far as well). The number would have been about $6 million, but that isn't outrageous for a starting RB. Now he's a free agent and they're going to have to get in a bidding war for him if they want him back or have to draft a franchise back early and give him lots of guaranteed money.
Tagging Graham isn't a bad move because the money isn't bad and it's a clearly a position where you need to have a comfort level.
However, it may have been smart to give Cedric Benson the tag (see ProFootballTalk.com for more of this discussion). He played relatively well for the team down the stretch, especially considering the team was rolling Ryan Fitzpatrick out at QB. He even stayed out of trouble (and has done so during this offseason so far as well). The number would have been about $6 million, but that isn't outrageous for a starting RB. Now he's a free agent and they're going to have to get in a bidding war for him if they want him back or have to draft a franchise back early and give him lots of guaranteed money.
U could be right' but as a bear fan I think he would lay down once he got the 6 million. Not a big fan of Ced.
QUOTE (yerckson3420 @ Feb 18 2009, 9:19:08 AM)
U could be right' but as a bear fan I think he would lay down once he got the 6 million. Not a big fan of Ced.
I agree with you yerckson. I don't think there will be a strong market for him. He had a good 1/2 season. I think he'd have to show me more before I gave him the money. The Browns are frugal so he may get a 2 or 3 million dollar prove it deal.
QUOTE (bwalker @ Feb 18 2009, 10:30:54 AM)
I agree with you yerckson. I don't think there will be a strong market for him. He had a good 1/2 season. I think he'd have to show me more before I gave him the money. The Browns are frugal so he may get a 2 or 3 million dollar prove it deal.
No doubt he'll get paid.. Make it 2-3 mil guaranteed and it HAS to be a deal with loads of incentives. He would be great as a "smash" if a team had a "dash" to go with him.
And on the Kicker topic... That's a very underrated position. Kickers can make huge differences in games. Venatieri won the Pats 3 Super Bowls.. Sure there's a lot more to those games than just him, but without him, there's no rings.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.