Deadskins wrote:I'm pretty sure there is no wiggle room here. No negotiations. If you sign a non-exclusive franchise player, you give up your next two first round picks. End of story. The only negotiations are between the signing team and the player on the deal that the franchising team would need to match to keep the rights.
Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.
I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade? If you don't want to get stuck with paying Cousins the big FT contract...you either trade him or use the non-exclusive/transition tag...
Yeah you're exactly right, DE. That's probably where the issue is getting a little confused. The team would tag him to protect and have him under contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
riggofan wrote:Its weird but I actually think this is a time I'd like to see Snyder step in and say, "We haven't had a reliable QB option on this team in 25 years. Get the f***ing deal done."
Sorry, but this is comical. Not your statement, just the thought of Danny boy actually doing something constructive or smart or somewhat logical. That just won't happen. The dude is a straight up buffoon when it comes to football ---- like the type that are so dumb that they are literally incapable of even learning how to improve. It's like me and singing: I could take voice lessons from the greatest voice coach on the planet for a decade ---- and I'd still suck. That's like Danny boy and football ---- but what makes it even worse is that he's too stupid to realize it (which makes him even more dangerous)...... It's best that Danny boy sit in the corner and write the checks. Keep his dumb @ss out of it.
I can't argue with any of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
Deadskins wrote:I'm pretty sure there is no wiggle room here. No negotiations. If you sign a non-exclusive franchise player, you give up your next two first round picks. End of story. The only negotiations are between the signing team and the player on the deal that the franchising team would need to match to keep the rights.
Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.
I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.
Sure, but that's a trade, not picking up a guy by way of the non-exclusive franchise tag. And we couldn't just "remove the tag and trade the player." The tag is the only thing giving us his rights. First, we would have to sign him to whatever deal, THEN trade him. That wasn't what was being argued at all.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
I think SF will want him enough that we can risk tagging him like last year (and it is a risk) and drag our feet until SF comes swooping in with the moon for Kirk and 2 1st rounders for us.
It's not what I wanted a year ago but I think it's going to happen.
Just my guess that's worth about
Hog Bowl III, V, X Champion (2011, 2013, 2018)
Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013, 2016)
Hognostibowl XII Champion (2017, 2018)
Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em, We will take 'em big score! Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown, We want heap more!
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
I think SF will want him enough that we can risk tagging him like last year (and it is a risk) and drag our feet until SF comes swooping in with the moon for Kirk and 2 1st rounders for us. It's not what I wanted a year ago but I think it's going to happen.
Just my guess that's worth about
I'm not a big Cousins fan but I think we're better off long term if we sign him and get some years out of him while we get someone else ready - the FO don't seem to want to give him a lot and they sure as hell will not have him play one more year and then lose him
there's more going on with this franchise than we're used to experiencing - not sure what that means
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:It's not really intellectually honest to say that a team could franchise tag a QB three times in a row, even if technically it's possible.
You're f****g kidding me, right?
The question was: "Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?" The correct answer is NO.
There's a rule that says you don't spend 20% of the cap on one player. 15% is about the cutoff.
In fact, the highest single player cap hit for 2017 based upon a $170MM cap is 14.5% for Tony Romo's $24.7MM cap figure.
So, I'm going to contend that while there is no actual rule against it there is a rule against it.
It's not something anyone is doing.
“He was at that time the smartest player in the league. We did everything we could to try to eliminate him from the play. We knew if we didn’t neutralize him, then we had less of a chance of winning.” - John Hannah on Chris Hanburger
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
I think SF will want him enough that we can risk tagging him like last year (and it is a risk) and drag our feet until SF comes swooping in with the moon for Kirk and 2 1st rounders for us.
It's not what I wanted a year ago but I think it's going to happen.
Just my guess that's worth about
As I understand it, that would be compensation for a free agent signing?? But, if the Skins tag him they better be prepared to either pay him long term or pay the tag price...if they don't get any takers.
"Sean Taylor is hands down the best athlete I've ever coached it's not even close" Gregg Williams 2005 Mini-Camp
Deadskins wrote:I'm pretty sure there is no wiggle room here. No negotiations. If you sign a non-exclusive franchise player, you give up your next two first round picks. End of story. The only negotiations are between the signing team and the player on the deal that the franchising team would need to match to keep the rights.
Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.
I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.
Sure, but that's a trade, not picking up a guy by way of the non-exclusive franchise tag. And we couldn't just "remove the tag and trade the player." The tag is the only thing giving us his rights. First, we would have to sign him to whatever deal, THEN trade him. That wasn't what was being argued at all.
Yes you are completely right on this. Thanks for splitting these hairs so effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
riggofan wrote:Yes, you are completely right on this. Thanks for splitting hairs so effectively.
it's the one thing he does so well
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
No, it wouldn't.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:It's not really intellectually honest to say that a team could franchise tag a QB three times in a row, even if technically it's possible.
You're f****g kidding me, right?
The question was: "Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?" The correct answer is NO.
There's a rule that says you don't spend 20% of the cap on one player. 15% is about the cutoff.
In fact, the highest single player cap hit for 2017 based upon a $170MM cap is 14.5% for Tony Romo's $24.7MM cap figure.
So, I'm going to contend that while there is no actual rule against it there is a rule against it.
It's not something anyone is doing.
That's called a rule of thumb.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:I'm pretty sure there is no wiggle room here. No negotiations. If you sign a non-exclusive franchise player, you give up your next two first round picks. End of story. The only negotiations are between the signing team and the player on the deal that the franchising team would need to match to keep the rights.
riggofan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
riggofan wrote:
Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.
I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.
Sure, but that's a trade, not picking up a guy by way of the non-exclusive franchise tag. And we couldn't just "remove the tag and trade the player." The tag is the only thing giving us his rights. First, we would have to sign him to whatever deal, THEN trade him. That wasn't what was being argued at all.
Yes you are completely right on this. Thanks for splitting these hairs so effectively.
Please! Deflect much?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they acquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
No, it wouldn't.
I guess it depends on who's doing the calling. They get Kirk, we get picks in exchange - sounds like a trade to me.
Tell you what, you let me call this a trade and I'll ignore your parsing of denotation vs. connotation of what the word "coach" means - not that either one of us needs permission.
Hog Bowl III, V, X Champion (2011, 2013, 2018)
Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013, 2016)
Hognostibowl XII Champion (2017, 2018)
Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em, We will take 'em big score! Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown, We want heap more!
If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they acquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
No, it wouldn't.
DarthMonk wrote:I guess it depends on who's doing the calling.
Well, by that token, I suppose someone could say Dez did catch that ball. But the NFL didn't call that a catch, and they wouldn't call this a trade either.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
I'll predict that Cousins is not going to play here in 2017
I think it would be better for the franchise to keep him but I don't get the feeling that Kirk really wants to play here
TOTALLY agree that having a good QB is V important, but ... it's time to find another one ....
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?
I am V surprised ... I'm not hearing all that much up here - Nate Sudfeld might be 'ready' to go, really?
Whether Cousins stays or not this FO needs to find his replacement and soon - not sure Sudfeld is capable but he's here
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?
All I recall hearing is that he's a project.
“He was at that time the smartest player in the league. We did everything we could to try to eliminate him from the play. We knew if we didn’t neutralize him, then we had less of a chance of winning.” - John Hannah on Chris Hanburger
Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?
All I recall hearing is that he's a project.
Right, but any news on how the project is progressing?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Please! Deflect much?
I am V surprised ... I'm not hearing all that much up here - Nate Sudfeld might be 'ready' to go, really?