Foster transitioned! (wow!)

You're right, we don't have two. My mistake came in thinking this was the "Final League Year." It's not, that is the 2007-2008 season.

I disagree with your last choice. We will not give him an inflated deal to avoid the $5M mark. He may get a $6-8M signing bonus on a 4 year deal plus a reasonable graduating base with incentives and still consider it a net win based on his being injury prone. That's NOT over the top or unreasonable. It benefits him to because it 1) gives him the money now, 2) is guaranteed, 3) and provides security. Truth is, I'd STILL not want to do it because of what I see as the relative value BUT I'm not his coach or team manager. But if the gamble pays off, great!

 

That's not what I meant. I meant that giving him the option of one year for $5 million means we're going to have to offer a lot more in any long-term deal to get him to accept it. Put yourself in Foster's shoes for a minute. Disregard momentarily whatever you may have thought about your value and think what one year for $5 million does to your thinking about how much you're worth over the long-term. If you can make that much over one season, are you really going to settle for $3 million or less per year?

Are you crazy? Of course that would be unreasonable for a very injury-prone running back whose numbers haven't even been that good when healthy. As noted repeatedly, Foster has never even had one 100 yard game against a defense that didn't suck ass against the run.

 

(got to head out but really quickly)
First, if it were me I wouldn't take the gamble. Second, please take a look at a running back named Priest Holmes. His first four years with the Ravens were horrible and injury riddled. Then look at his career once he got to the Chiefs. NOT saying it WILL happen only that sometimes gambling pays off.

 

#1) People who have been around long enough know that I desperately wanted us to sign Holmes when he left Baltimore. Foster is not Priest Holmes.

#2) Priest Holmes was absolutely not "injury riddled," and his years with the Ravens were absolutely not "horrible." Holmes wasn't given the chance to compete for carries as a rookie, played in all 16 games his second season, missed eight games in '99 with one knee injury, and then played in all 16 games during his fourth season. Moreover, Holmes topped one thousand yards in his second season and had an overall ypc of 4.6 during his three seasons as a contributor with the Ravens.

#3) Holmes signed with Kansas City for $8 million over 5 years. His signing bonus was $2 million, not the $6-$8 million you're saying would be "very reasonable" for Foster.

 

OK..here's a question; This "transition"tag means we have basically right of first refusal to match any other offers, right? Doesn't mean we have to, just that we can if we want. So what happens if no other offers come in?? I mean what if other teams are afraid of his injuries and don't want to sign Foster. What position does that put us in? Are we obligated to pay him the average salary of the top 10 or however they figure it?

If we are not, then we have built a pretty good negotiating tool to sign Foster. Hurney can say to his agent, "hey man, you know you can't do better than this out there, you already tried."....kind deal.

If it obligates us to pay if no others offer, then you guys are right...Hurney is off his rocker.

 

Doesn't obligate us to pay. We can remove the tag and he's free to sign with whomever. But he can then sign, and we've got a contract for the tender. We'd then have to cut him. You don't Tag someone you don't want to keep.

 

I wish we had too.

To use your language, he wasn't good enough to beat out their starter until four games into his second season, was injuried in his 3rd and was benched to a rookie after his second game in his final season with the Ravens. With that track record he WAS a gamble.

The Salary cap for the 2001 season was $67.4M compaired to $94-96M this year. In 2001 Holmes was the bargain of the NFL and remained so until 2004 when he got his $8.5M in signing bonus. I'll admit I was probably a little to high on the $6-8M as I originally had $5-6M before I thought about how we've structured deals in the past. Still $6M/4years plus $600K the first year graduating up $1-2M a year in base (plus incentives) isn't that bad. It's a gamble yes, but not an "all-in" on a pair of pocket dueces.

 

when I said Short worked out, that was based on the fact that he saw the field as a starter...some of they guys we picked up didnt even make it opening day...i guess thats what I meant by worked out.

 

I don't think Short was as awful overall as Collin, for a cheap run down strongside linebacker. Certainly not nearly as good as Fields, but I didn't view him as a liability. He did have rough start being out of position a bunch in the first three games, and against Dallas, but was usually in his gap, didn't overpursue, and was one of the surest tacklers we had. I'd say he met expectations.

Short isn't particuarly fast. If you want more pass rushing, or better coverage from the strongside, or someone you don't have to take out in passing situations, then you need someone else. And if we can improve, that would be great. Such players like Fields are rare with both above average power and speed, most teams have guys like Short, or undersized guys who don't play as strong.

Short was a single. Not a homerun like Fields, but a solid single. He showed up and did the job he was hired for.

 

Agreed. He was brought here as insurence to Fields, and he has done an okay job. He doesn't bring one outstanding quality to the table. On the same token, there haven't been too many games in which he's constantly been out of position. Or times that that his play has been a major deterrent to the defense. With that said, it would hurt to find a more athletic and versitile player for the position.

Seward?